CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
Gravity and the Nature of Information by Edwin Eugene Klingman
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 15:29 GMT
Essay AbstractThe question 'It from Bit' or vice versa is the question of what is real. The answer is a matter of belief, so I analyze why physicists believe theories, including QED and QCD and follow with the simplest possible theory of the real world. I focus on the fact that gravity is real, and discuss a new approach to non-linearity. Because Wheeler’s 'It from Bit' is tied to his 'Participatory Universe' I explore that topic and a theory of information based on gravity.
Author BioEdwin Eugene Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic & molecular). His 1979 PhD dissertation, (now published as "The Automatic Theory of Physics"), describes how numbers and math derive from physical reality and how a robot would derive a theory of physics based on pattern recognition and entropy. Founder of three Silicon Valley companies, he holds 33 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design" Vol I and II. He has recently non-linearized the weak field equations of relativity, and is now applying the technique to problems mentioned in this essay.
Download Essay PDF File
basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 01:16 GMT
Dear Sir.
The master presenter has done it again! Presented a highly readable multidisciplinary essay with the right conclusions.
Mathematics explains only “how much” one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not “what”, “why”, “when”, “where”, or “with whom” about the objects involved in such...
view entire post
Dear Sir.
The master presenter has done it again! Presented a highly readable multidisciplinary essay with the right conclusions.
Mathematics explains only “how much” one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not “what”, “why”, “when”, “where”, or “with whom” about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics.
Mathematics is also related to the measurement of time evolution of the state of something. These time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph – the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.
The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. Yet, there is an unreasonable over-dependence on mathematics by physicists – often wrongly.
For example, the equality sign in the mass energy equation only shows that both mass and energy are inseparable conjugates (if one becomes zero, the other becomes zero) and their proportion in the totality vary in a fixed proportion like the two sides of the scale – if more is added to one side, it goes down (becomes dense) and vice versa. Yet, this has been interpreted as both mass and energy are exchangeable. No, only the product becomes different, that makes for all the variations in the universe. And this also supports that “Planck satellite data shows with high precision that we live in a remarkably simple universe” made complicated by modern scientists.
Geometry is related to tangible structures that are directly perceptible. The so-called space-geometry is actually geometry of objects in space. Without objects, there can be no geometry of space. Gravity is a force that is indirectly perceptible through its effects only. How can geometry be used to explain gravity? If the space between the apple and the Earth curved, why only the apple became close to Earth; why does that space behaves as if it has not changed or did not affect other bodies? We can pass through that space without bending,
It is correct that “Linearizing an equation does not make a non-linear field linear”. Yet, the reverse process has been done and followed in an arbitrary manner violating the principles of mathematics. . The wave function is determined by solving Schrödinger’s differential equation: d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0.
By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The way the equation has been written, it appears to be an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation to the three spatial dimensions (adding two more equal terms by replacing x with y and z) does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A three dimensional equation is a third order equation impling volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume [x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z)] and [x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z)]. Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation.
Yet, the conclusions are all correct! “A bit has meaning only when a real change in form of the structure occurs. All else is simply energy exchange”. And all these are guided by gravity. “Bits and information imply consciousness; knowledge and meaning of information require awareness!”
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
Thank you for beginning my comments with such a gracious remark. Before responding I wanted to review your current essay and was rewarded with a high density of insights. You have captured the essence of perception when you say that
"Perception is the processing of [...] something with some stored data to convey a combined form 'it is like that'..."
and
"In the perception "this (object) is like that (the concept)", one can describe "that" only if one has perceived it earlier."
That is, it was not meaningful the first time!
You say, "our thoughts consist of words with etymological or fixed meanings [...] which are preserved in Nature [and hence across cultures and languages!]"
You have clearly spent much time analyzing perception.
And your summary of Shannon is masterful.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 00:51 GMT
Thanks Guru!
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Helmut Hansen wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 08:17 GMT
Dear Eugene,
thank you very much for your very inspiring essay.
I was surprised to find even esoteric aspects in your profound approach, f.e. the Not-Two aspect of reality, which is indeed terribly difficult for our brains to deal with.
I am convinced that our Universe bases fundamentally upon such a Not-Two conception (which I am calling the "Principle of Radical...
view entire post
Dear Eugene,
thank you very much for your very inspiring essay.
I was surprised to find even esoteric aspects in your profound approach, f.e. the Not-Two aspect of reality, which is indeed terribly difficult for our brains to deal with.
I am convinced that our Universe bases fundamentally upon such a Not-Two conception (which I am calling the "Principle of Radical Non-Duality"). The Wave-Particle Duality of Light is - as conceived by me - nothing else than a physical reflection of this fundamental principle.
It implies that wave and particle are two distinguishable aspects of one and the same reality comparable with the two sides of one and the same coin.
Einstein was quite unhappy about this dualism (i.e. this Not-Two aspect of light). He could not accept quantum mechanics because in quantum mechanics this duality was actually consolidated as a fundamental principle whereas Einstein dreamed of Oneness instead of Not-Two-Ness.
If we accept this duality of wave and particle as being a fundamental aspect of light, it would be natural, to assume that the speed of light c is of dual nature as well. That means the fundamental constant of c should be given twice - in a wave-like version and in particle-like version. In special relativity only one of these two faces of c has been taken into account, expressed by its second postulate.
In this way the Not-Two aspect of reality - if taken as a fundamental feature of reality - implies revolutionary physical consequences like the existence of a hidden face of c. If this concequence were true, special relativity would be fundamentally incomplete.
When P. Dirac combined Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity, just this incompleteness of special relativity became integral part of QED. To me this incompleteness of special relativity is the misleading core of QED, in particular with respect of the relativistic version of Lorentz symmetry.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 18:23 GMT
Dear Helmut,
Thank you for your kind remarks. You and I are in complete agreement on the fundamental 'not-two'-ness of reality.
I have read and enjoyed your essay and am grateful for your reference to de Broglie's "Thermodynamics of the Isolated Particle". I thought that I had read most of de Broglie (one of the greatest physicists) but I was unaware of this paper. I have just downloaded it but (at 104 pages) have not read it yet. When I do I may have more questions or comments.
Your essay asks "Is the Planck constant itself the natural digit?" It is, in my theory, the quantum condition that enables a continuum to possess a threshold, thereby defining "two-ness" -- above or below the threshold of action. This is the essence of 'bit'.
We agree in principle on the particle wave nature of reality, but perhaps differ in details. For example the electron effectively "condenses" from a C-field vortex and exists as a stable soliton-like particle which is inherently accompanied by C-field circulation (the 'wave'). Thus both the particle and the wave are 'forms' of the gravitational field that exist simultaneously and inseparably. In this sense,
"Wave and particle are two distinguishable aspects of one and the same reality..."
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 08:43 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I enjoyed very much reading your essay, and I like your criticism on how physics is done, unfortunately too often today, much like in the theory of epicycles. I tend to see all these as explorations of alternative possibilities, so that natural selection can eventually apply to the various approaches. Thanks for citing my essay. It is good to see that you touched very well the theme, and I wish you good luck with the contest and with your GEM!
Best wishes,
Cristi
Cristi Stoica
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 18:32 GMT
Dear Cristi,
I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. I agree with you that natural selection is the ideal way for physics to involve. As I noted in my essay this requires that all premises be subject to question. Jaynes pointed out the necessity of this.
Thanks for your good wishes and good luck to you also.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT
Edwin,
What can I say. I started with a page to note the bits I agreed and any compliments and another for the bits I didn't fully agree with or grasp.
I now have a short essay and a blank sheet of paper.
Absolutely brilliant job. It deserves to be number one, and may even, god forbid, be noticed by the judges. OK, we mustn't get carried away, perhaps just a couple of Nobel prizes!
As there's no room for me to identify all the analogies and commonality with my own essay I'll leave it to you to do that 'Easter Egg hunt'. But I can't compare mine to yours. ill I've done is drawn a line between reality and maths, and resolved the EPR paradox. A drop in the ocean relative(istical)ly.
Just one point I'd offer, on; " ...the self-interaction grows until a threshold is reached, whereupon the field grows in strength almost without limit!"
In reality we have the Unruh effect, now not found as just due to acceleration but essentialy photoionization or condensation increasing with velocity, and I've also now derived the clear real physical mechanism of the curve and LT limit gamma. Perhaps we'' chat privately on that one.
Very best of luck. I think you've excelled this year.
Do let me know if you could follow all mine ok, I fear I made it far too dense yet again!
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 19:21 GMT
Peter,
Thanks for your wonderful comment. As Philip Gibbs pointed out elsewhere, the goal is not so much to 'win' as to record the ideas, so that, when the establishment discovers them one can point to the record. But I really do appreciate your sentiments.
As for the "grows in strength almost without limit" aspect, the limit of course is determined by the driving force, which is always finite, but not by any 'mechanism' or inherent limit. If you have ideas about the Unruh effect (and I know you do) feel free to communicate them to me by email. I am not sure I understand the point above, but look forward to your elaboration.
I have read your essay, and it is definitely dense! I plan to return to it and others for review now that mine is posted.
Thanks again, Peter, and best wishes for you,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 02:13 GMT
Dear Edwin
I enjoyed your guided tour into realms of ideas that are brilliant, inspiring and always thought-provoking. I could not follow everything, and did not agree with everything that I did understand. You have the right combination of technical grasp and mental stamina, and have scribbled a treasure map with the few equations you distilled from the infinite tangle of those available....
view entire post
Dear Edwin
I enjoyed your guided tour into realms of ideas that are brilliant, inspiring and always thought-provoking. I could not follow everything, and did not agree with everything that I did understand. You have the right combination of technical grasp and mental stamina, and have scribbled a treasure map with the few equations you distilled from the infinite tangle of those available. With this map you propose to find the way out of the jungle that physics has become full of untamed beasts (many mythical). And it has a friendly elephant too! Excellent!
Your kernel equation of the self-interacting field is very much how I see the self-assembly and self-convolution of a Beautiful Universe (BU) made up of a lattice of nodes interacting with adjacent ones as I have described elsewhere.
In the Einstein Maxwell equation what does the vector v represent? A variable speed of light? If so it is exactly as Eddington proposed that the vacuum has a coefficient of refraction n= c/v according to the local density, as incorporated into my (BU).
Thank you for quoting many of Smolin's bon-mots - I was not aware of this one - "the theory of epicycles was good to one part in 1000"..."Neither mathematical beauty nor agreement with experiment can guarantee that the ideas a theory is based on bear the slightest relation to reality." Bravo - so true.
Now where I tend to disagree with you is about gravity being a basic attribute. You say "Energy has mass, and mass gravitates". Hmm this is too sweeping a statement - perhaps you are sweeping some mechanism for how energy gets converted to mass and its gravitational field under the cosmic carpet. Yes (m) and (e) are mutually convertible but they are are not the same thing. Mass may be a knot of energy that prevents the energy propagating, whirring in place instead. So the gravitational field has energy but it is only created when mass is created. This process becomes very clear in (BU) when two nodes twist and their (+ -) poles 'click' in place and the adjacent nodes twist accordingly and the effect propagates through the vacuum by twisting other nodes. If indeed gravity is due to such twisting, it is not at all a fundamental property. But perhaps we are thinking the same thing and the terminology is different.
You said "Gravity is a field, not abstract geometry". Bravo- and so much for General Relativity. I have stressed this point in (BU) theory where the local potential density slows down light, not flexes space-time.
In your mass-flow induced C-field diagrams should not the arrow follow the right hand rule and spin in the other direction?
You said "I hypothesize that awareness came into existence but once". Interesting and tantalizing, although again I do not see how this can be so. Are you talking about some sort of Teilhard de Chardin-like Noo-Sphere or a mystical universe that envelops the physical one? I sympathize with your drift to the neo-mystical because all this science has hardened our minds (at least it did mine) whereas mystical/religious experiences, while being "real", have no physical theory to explain them and give them weight in this too-confident age.
You touch on other interesting things in your gem of a paper, but I had better stop here. Best of luck with your ongoing research and work.
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 03:32 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Knew you'd like the elephant!
The vector v is the velocity of the local mass (actually mass density, rho) so that the combination (rho)(v) is momentum density. The existence of momentum density then (according to Maxwell's, Einstein's, and my own equations) gives rise to a circulating gravitomagnetic field exactly analogous to the manner in which a charge current...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir,
Knew you'd like the elephant!
The vector v is the velocity of the local mass (actually mass density, rho) so that the combination (rho)(v) is momentum density. The existence of momentum density then (according to Maxwell's, Einstein's, and my own equations) gives rise to a circulating gravitomagnetic field exactly analogous to the manner in which a charge current density gives rise to electromagnetic field circulation. 'v' can be any (nonzero) velocity up to the speed of light.
I agree that Smolin has done an excellent job of analyzing current problems. [Not so good on solving them.] The one you quoted is very important.
As for energy and mass, I'm not sure I can satisfy you. The current belief, which I share, is that the energy of the field does have "mass equivalence" and does gravitate. You may be asking about 'matter' which I tend to think of as "condensed mass".
All theories have to have some basic 'substance' or 'field' or 'something' since no one knows how to derive a real physical universe from 'nothing' (although I think that's what the Platonists are striving for.) In my theory it's gravity. I feel it, it acts on me, it's real. Rather than derive gravity from some imaginary field, I simply accept it as real and try to derive everything else from that reality, starting only with the idea that it must evolve, since our current condition is not the initial or original condition of the universe.
In my earlier essays I developed the aspect of there being initially nothing but gravity. In other words the energy of the gravitational field itself is the only mass in existence. This may seem tricky but I am unaware of any theory of creation of the universe that is absolutely straightforward. If one accepts this hypothesis, everything follows from there. One has to start with something and I start with one field, the gravitational field, and one condition, that it can only evolve through self interaction. All of my essays are based on this hypothesis, which is essentially what Eugenio Calabi also based his theory on.
I have, in the basic C-field circulation equation, suppressed the minus sign by incorporating it into the kappa coefficient. This sign makes the circulation left-handed (which it actually is.) You have a good eye for visual detail.
Your question about Chardin is on target, but I do not propose a mystical field that *envelops* the physical one. It *is* the physical one, properly understood. Self interaction implies, to some extent, self-awareness. That is the Participatory Universe Wheeler proposed. It started as One, Not-two, and evolved to our current state.
Thank you for your interest and your well wishes.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 01:43 GMT
Thank you Edwin for your careful and satisfactory responses to my questions.
What you say that " Rather than derive gravity from some imaginary field, I simply accept it as real and try to derive everything else from that reality, starting only with the idea that it must evolve" makes sense - In a self-acting system there is no 'primal motive force' as it would be in a car engine. There the pistons turn the gears that turn the wheel - it is wrong to start with the wheel. But in the type of system you describe it is reversible at least in the local micro volumes. Hope that is right.
I noticed the chirality of the arrow because in my own paper I did all the illustrations using a special font I created for the top-like rotating nodes. And it all followed the left hand rule. I revised the font and illustrations when I discovered that!
Oops I will now have to revise
the web page describing the font as well because the nodes there still rotated left-handedly!
Cheers
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 03:05 GMT
Dear Sir,
You have proposed a different field, never seen, as the consciousness field and the field is aware of both position and motion aspects of reality - Space and Time! Did you realize that by this you have not only made a universally true statement that can explain the creation event?
If you bring down position and motion to fundamental levels (Space and Time are later...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
You have proposed a different field, never seen, as the consciousness field and the field is aware of both position and motion aspects of reality - Space and Time! Did you realize that by this you have not only made a universally true statement that can explain the creation event?
If you bring down position and motion to fundamental levels (Space and Time are later derivatives), then position becomes the background structure on which motion acts multiplied by inertia. This, in turn, generates friction due to the reverse process of inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the background structure that acts like the bow-shock effect for the boat in a river. Where the inertia of restoration dominates, motion becomes zero cutting off a big chunk and returning back to repeat this process again. The successive motions are less energetic. Thus, viewed at the current rate of motion, everything will look far off the center. This is the true explanation of the current state of the universe and not the so-called Inflation.
In the universal scale, position can exist on its own independently, but motion is energy that requires an object to move to make it perceivable. Thus, the universal position can form the background structure. Since there is no true void, nothing moves in a straight line, because the object next to it obstructs it and it must “scrape through” by displacing that object laterally. This is because, all micro and planets, stars and galaxies, etc, are nearly spherical – their diameter is related to their circumference by a ration √10 instead of π. Thus, the universe is spinning on its axis making the galactic clusters look temporarily receding from each other, though no such effect is seen in lesser scales – the Solar system is not expanding. This explains the so-called dark energy, which is an oxymoron – if it is dark (non-interacting), it cannot be energy, which is perceptible only through its interactions.
You are correct that “It makes sense only if consciousness is inherently a field which concentrates locally to become aware of local structure and 'in'-formation - the formation of a model or encoded structure within more comprehensive structure”. The in-formation part implies that there is a sequence. We have repeatedly shown how space and time arise out of the concept of sequence. But there is another important angle here. The observer (relatively static) and the observable (transitory) are related through the mechanism of observation. The content of all observations is “I perceive this...(different observables)”. Thus, from the angle of observation, all A=A. But when it comes to the observable, A is not A. The other A represents the material world, where everything is discrete. The relation, which makes the observation possible, is the fundamental force gravity.
Have you ever wondered the difference between force and energy? Free on-line dictionary defines force as “The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power” in the general category, but changes to “A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application” in the physics category. The same dictionary defines energy as “The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power” and “The capacity of a physical system to do work” in general and physics category respectively. The word “capacity to cause” physical change means, energy in its stored or potential state is force. In its kinetic state (vigorous activity), it is interaction and after it ceases to act, it is action. Though the three are only evolutionary states of the same thing, they are physically different.
Gravity has two functions: structure formation that makes particles interact and its complement displacement that makes particles separates. Gravity as a “force” stabilizes orbits between interacting bodies, when both bodies circle around a point called barycenter. If you take the distance from this point to the centers of each body, draw a square of that length and distribute the mass of the two bodies in the reverse field, you will find some interesting results. We leave it to you for working it out so that you can draw your own conclusions. For this reason, gravity is closer to magnetism. Bodies with strong magnetic fields exhibit high gravitational potential also.
On the other hand, gravity as “energy” in its structure formation function; makes particles interact in four different combinations of proximity-distance variables (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance) between the two bodies involved in interaction. These four are expressed as strong, weak nuclear, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively.
The states of matter are described their dimension, which differentiate the “internal structural space” – bare mass from the “external relational space” – the radiative mass. It is perceived through electromagnetic radiation (ocular perception), 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. For this reason, we classify the states of matter as solid, fluid or gaseous, depending upon whether the dimension is fixed, unfixed or unbound. Since gravity displaces all three types from each other, it appears in 3 x 2 + 1 = 7 types. Thus, all the present models of gravity, which treats it as one type, fail outside the Solar System.
These are elaborations of our essay, which harmonize with your essay.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 04:41 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
In answer to your first paragraph, despite the broad nature of the claims made in my essay, I have not exhausted the implications of the theory. Both the 9-page limit and psychological realities operate to limit my claims, but I am generally aware of the implications of the theory.
As for your finding harmony with your theory, I am pleased. As one works with a theory over time, one develops intuitions, terminologies, and concepts that support the theory. In communication with others it is often necessary to spend time in translation. Of course it is best when the solutions to the equations also support the theory! As I have only recently developed the current technique, I have a number of calculations to perform before I can demonstrate some of the implications.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 11:06 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Nice to read and comment your next essay.
You are right saying: “Not all theories make predictions, yet some physicists seem to believe in these because of the ‘beauty’ of the math. But what about theories that do make predictions testable by experiment? What does ‘testable by experiment’ mean? Generally it means a theory can fit the data.”
You claim...
view entire post
Dear Edwin,
Nice to read and comment your next essay.
You are right saying: “Not all theories make predictions, yet some physicists seem to believe in these because of the ‘beauty’ of the math. But what about theories that do make predictions testable by experiment? What does ‘testable by experiment’ mean? Generally it means a theory can fit the data.”
You claim also that: “Gravity is real. This is experientially obvious, yet gravity is considered mere geometry by many…” I have proposed a simple experiment to prove or falsify your statement about gravity:
http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027
If the photon spin in my experiment will not change as predicted by my concept (at this point contrary to QM) and calibrated measurement will show that, the concept will fit the data. This spin experiment is simple and has only two possible outcomes. If physicists claim that physics is nothing more than geometry it does not mean that it is not real. I do not think that geometry itself is the reality but I try to use it as a model of reality helping me to imagine and understand the laws of physics and create predictions about the reality evolution. The geometrical point of view together with an evolutionary approach lets me reason that the universe is a dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality. This structured criticality is a property of complex systems where small events may trigger larger events. This is a kind of chaos where the general behavior of the system can be modeled on one scale while smaller- and larger-scale behaviors remain unpredictable (this is also Smolin point of view). The simple example of that phenomenon is a pile of sand. When QM and GR are computable and deterministic, the universe evolution (naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic.
After the same Smolin you claim "Neither mathematical beauty nor agreement with experiment can guarantee that the ideas a theory is based on bear the slightest relation to reality." So tell me what could possibly give us the guarantee? If anything? I know this is a hard issue with our perception involved.
Best regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 20:18 GMT
Jacek,
Thanks for reading and commenting. In your abstract you note that "answers can differ from one scientist to another". In my abstract I say that "what is real... is a matter of belief." You ask what could possibly give us a guarantee that the ideas a theory is based on bear the slightest relation to reality? I don't believe that anything can do so, although I do believe we can do...
view entire post
Jacek,
Thanks for reading and commenting. In your abstract you note that "answers can differ from one scientist to another". In my abstract I say that "what is real... is a matter of belief." You ask what could possibly give us a guarantee that the ideas a theory is based on bear the slightest relation to reality? I don't believe that anything can do so, although I do believe we can do much better than the Standard Model. Currently there many anomalies in physics, which are places where theory doesn't work. If we came up with a theory that had no anomalies, it would certainly seem to have a far greater probability of reflecting reality.
In your table 1, you define the mental world by "conscious observers in the universe are creators of illusion." While I believe I know what you mean, the word 'illusion' in Wikipedia means to 'distort reality' -- I don't think of mental models as distorting reality but as recording it in a neural structure (at least) and interpreting it through, as Basudeba noted above, the perception that "this is like that". I see this as representation, not illusion. Nevertheless, as you probably mean, it is an *idea* of reality, not direct reality. I think that this is what Einstein meant by "illusion", that is, 'idea' but not necessarily 'wrong idea', just incomplete. Yet if, as you seem to believe, reality is a field (or fields?) then we too are part of the field and are actually inseparable from reality, as opposed to disconnected from reality. That is pretty much what I believe.
I've read your essay and your viXra paper and do not understand the experiment. Have you considered geometric diagrams or math as a way of making the rationale clearer? I agree with you that the result of the spin experiment would be significant, but I don't understand the reasoning you base it on. In this respect, one physical experiment on neutron interferometry described by Sakurai in 'Modern Quantum Mechanics' concludes "gravity is not purely geometric at the quantum level because the effect depends on (m/h)."
In viXra you note "the space-time is not the background, but the material of matter and energy itself...". That is how I see it also. You and I are close to agreement on reality. You discuss "the self-organized space-time in the form of [waves] being physical world and perceptual experience (mental world) at the same time". I agree with this almost completely. But then you think this is "created" out of a Platonic math world. Here I disagree completely, for reasons outlined in my essay. In short we appear very close in our understanding of mental and physical, but very far apart in our understanding of mathematics. That is to be expected in this particular essay contest!
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 10:33 GMT
Hi Eugene, It is my pleasure to explain…
If we assumed that no measures give us a guarantee that the ideas a theory is based on bear the slightest relation to reality (experiments and observations) then what would be the sense of our work? Obviously I do not expect 100% relation and forever but an approximation possible to get at the moment. In the abstract I have meant a common language issue.
Yes, I do not understand the illusion not as fully distorting reality but rather as the issue of human being’s perception (incl. our brain construction that has evolved for DNA successful replication and not for discovering the reality). The explicit example is gravity being not a force but a manifestation (representation if you like) of spacetime geometry. Exactly in my view it is an *idea* of reality, not direct reality. As you see we do share similar understanding of reality and we only use different language (that is what I have noticed in the abstract).
I will try to clarify my experiment idea. If we assume (like in my thought experiment) that the photon comes back to us along a geodesic coming around the “particle” observed and not it is reflected (as assumed in QED) than it cannot change the spin.
The reality as "created" out of Platonic math world is I guess what Wheeler meant in his “It from Bit”. And here we come back to the illusion / perception / definitions issue. It is not easy to shortly explain how to find the relation between the spacetime and Bit but Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga in his great essay “directly identifies the spacetime as carrier of the Bit”. His essay is very technical so maybe it would give you better view at my concept from a different angle. It does not mean that I fully support Torsten ideas but our concepts in general are very close.
Thank you for commenting.It is nice to observe a unification of ideas and I hope in the outcome we will get a unification of forces.
Best regards
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 21:43 GMT
Jacek,
Thanks for the explanations. We do agree that we do not expect a 100% (and forever) relation of theory to reality, so "certainty" is impossible. But as I explained above, we can hope for and work toward an anomaly-free theory which would give us greater faith in the "probability" of correct understanding.
I understood your use of "illusion" to mean "idea" and we do agree on this point.
I now understand the idea behind your experiment. Thanks!
I do believe I understand space-time as "the carrier of the Bit", but I view it as the carrier of (packets of) energy and, as I noted in my essay, it is not a 'bit' of information until it triggers some threshold that essentially 'records' the information in some structure. The structure may be as simple as a hydrogen atom or as complex as DNA or neural network. There are no "bits" traveling through space-time, there is only energy registering at the end of the travel. As far as I can see the net results are the same, but the lack of independent existence of the 'bit' means it could never "give rise to" physical reality, as Wheeler suggested. It has meaning only in the context of a pre-existing physical reality. On the other hand, the information *does* give rise to our mental images or ideas of physical reality, which your diagram seems to allude to.
You and I are largely in agreement on these issues except for the Platonic math and the reality of the 'bit' before it registers. As I note above, we agree that "space-time is not the background, but the material of matter and energy itself..." and are close to agreement on "the self-organized space-time in the form of [waves] being physical world and perceptual experience (mental world) at the same time".
In agreement on these issues we are close to a unification of ideas. Thanks for sharing your ideas.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 21:34 GMT
Edwin,
Quite a mindfull. Much of it above my paygrade though.
If I may make a few observations about the section on consciousness;
"Awareness is located in the field, but concentrated where the action is.'
The example I tend to think of is of a magnifying glass, focusing light to a point. When we draw it out, the light is diffuse and fills the whole circle, while...
view entire post
Edwin,
Quite a mindfull. Much of it above my paygrade though.
If I may make a few observations about the section on consciousness;
"Awareness is located in the field, but concentrated where the action is.'
The example I tend to think of is of a magnifying glass, focusing light to a point. When we draw it out, the light is diffuse and fills the whole circle, while when we draw it in and concentrate the light to a point, there is shadow in the surrounding area. I find concentration to be like this; Isolating from the broader network of beingness. It is when we blend, unfocused, with what is around us, that we are one with it. Meditation is the conventional model, but steady activity works just fine.
I think though, that I would compare awareness to light, rather than gravity, while gravity is the coming together that is knowledge. Like light, awareness is constantly pushing at its surroundings. looking for whatever crack it can find, constantly moving on. While knowledge is the thought structures, insights and observations that form and either grow, if we keep adding more attention/energy to them, or are forgotten, if our awareness moves onto something else. Only those thoughts which hold together and grow are what we would think of as logic, while the rest are only connected as a stream of consciousness. Awareness is what is present, the hands of the clock, constantly taking on new forms, or building up the old ones and knowledge is events, marks on the face of the clock, that come into being and recede, like waves, either crashing or fading. So with galaxies and gravity, the structure falls into the vortex, while the light radiates out. Awareness moving on, as thoughts fade away.
There is a political relationship in here as well, since conservatism is the structure, seemingly hard and fast, yet constantly crumbling and consolidating, while liberalism tends to be more the soft connecting tissue, radiating out and growing, yet never quite grasping and when it does, becoming conservative and solid. Like youth and age. Light and structure.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 22:16 GMT
Hi John,
Thanks for reading and commenting. I'm always interested in your ideas, as you tend to take a more catholic approach, and don't sweat the details. But, of course, the devil is in the details!
I'm very happy that FQXi has finally created an essay contest where the topic of 'consciousness' must be treated, since knowledge, information, interpretation, meaning, and similar...
view entire post
Hi John,
Thanks for reading and commenting. I'm always interested in your ideas, as you tend to take a more catholic approach, and don't sweat the details. But, of course, the devil is in the details!
I'm very happy that FQXi has finally created an essay contest where the topic of 'consciousness' must be treated, since knowledge, information, interpretation, meaning, and similar terms make no sense in a dead, unaware, universe.
John, you say: "I think though, that I would compare awareness to light, rather than gravity...". But I am not "comparing". I am stating (proposing) that self-awareness *is* the nature of gravity, not *is like* gravity. This is a very important distinction. The field exists, and has a 'nature'.
I just finished posting on another thread you are also contributing to, (forum/topic/1778) and I will repeat the relevant content here:
I consider consciousness to be a field capable of awareness and volition. The awareness is of mass flow, including the mass of the field energy itself, ie, self-awareness. The "information" that 'in'-forms the brain is energy that contributes to (at one level) the establishment, through learning or adaptive response, of connectivity between neurons that results in complex 3-D flows of ions in axons and vesicles across synapses. Actually 4-D flows, since they are dynamic. Thus the visual (or other) senses stimulate the neural network and activate a pattern of mass flows through it. This is typically a very specific pattern whose interconnectivity has already been learned.
As Basudeba pointed out in a comment above, the perception (or awareness) is essentially "(this) is like (that)". It is in this way that we gain our understanding of reality. He also mentioned that: "in the perception "this (object) is like that (the concept)", one can describe "that" only if one has perceived it earlier."
That is, it was not meaningful the first time!
That is, one can correlate only after there is something to relate to.
That is why, for example, if one meets someone at a party with an unusual name, it's very hard to understand the name the first time one hears it. Similarly, one must listen to complex music more than once to hear the complexity.
This model answers (for me at least) Lev's question of "How do I recognize a previously unseen cat as a 'cat'?"
It also has seemingly unrelated implications, such as why one can, in a dream state, get caught in a "loop".
This model, nor any other, does not 'explain' awareness, per se, but, as a self-aware being, I know it exists. If it is of the proposed field nature, aware of complex dynamic mass flows determined by learned connections (in 4D) I believe the above captures the essence of our mental nature, and fits with my definition of intelligence as "consciousness plus logic", where the logic is physical interconnectivity in the network(s). We know that multiple networks are interconnected, so this model also yields hierarchical structures of 'ideas'. Thus 'thinking' is simply appropriate self-generated stimulation of these dynamic flows, while 'observing' is external stimulation of these dynamic flows, and dreaming is semi-random stimulation of these flows.
The key to all of the above is the field's awareness of local mass flow. This is the significance of the C-field circulation equation relating local circulation to local mass current density. This comment is the tip of the iceberg. Much more ice can be found in my essays and books.
As simply a matter of interest, this comment (and all my comments) was dictated to Dragon software. If software is capable of pattern recognition of this order, the model I describe above is capable of pattern recognition of the order that we exhibit.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 00:32 GMT
Edwin,
The distinction is between awareness and self-awareness. Yes, I do agree self-awareness is (a form of) gravitational feedback. Yet as I point out in the analogy of the magnifying glass, when we become too self-aware, it becomes that gravitational collapse into narcissism, personal obsessions and political fanaticism, that causes isolation. Much as gravity points to a center, without...
view entire post
Edwin,
The distinction is between awareness and self-awareness. Yes, I do agree self-awareness is (a form of) gravitational feedback. Yet as I point out in the analogy of the magnifying glass, when we become too self-aware, it becomes that gravitational collapse into narcissism, personal obsessions and political fanaticism, that causes isolation. Much as gravity points to a center, without having a point at the center, the sense of self becomes a vortex. And motivates the sort of people who end up either behind bars, or running large corporations. Or both. (Large centralized organizations are gravitational vortices, with requisite cult-like tendencies.) Not to say we are all not the center of our own view of the universe, but best to keep it in perspective. We need to maintain the connective tissue that is like the light simply radiating out and not ever coming back, but will locate our position for a long time to come, to whomever else is aware.
Not that I have anything against gravity, but like everything else, best in moderation.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 02:33 GMT
John,
I think we're failing to communicate. You're talking analogy. I'm talking 'nature of'. My position is not 'It's like..." but "It is...". Philip Gibbs says his ideas are radical. My ideas are radical: the idea that gravity is aware is radical. After 7 years of exploring this idea I am more than ever convinced of the reality of it. But then everyone who writes an essay on FQXi is...
view entire post
John,
I think we're failing to communicate. You're talking analogy. I'm talking 'nature of'. My position is not 'It's like..." but "It is...". Philip Gibbs says his ideas are radical. My ideas are radical: the idea that gravity is aware is radical. After 7 years of exploring this idea I am more than ever convinced of the reality of it. But then everyone who writes an essay on FQXi is convinced of the validity of their ideas, so what else is new?
I don't expect to change any minds. I'm aware of only one person changing their mind on FQXi in the last 5 years! But it's an excellent forum to present ideas, and record with a time/date stamp, so that's what I do here.
I would ask that you consider the difference between 'it's like..." and "it is...", although the modern relativist view is to deny the possibility of the latter; too absolutist. I get the feeling from your comments that you are missing my point. I am not analogizing, or coming up with a cool 'viewpoint'. I'm trying to explain the nature of awareness, which is key to the topic of this contest. It takes a while for radical ideas to sink in. That's the meaning of Basudeba's point above. There has to be the first 'that' before there can be the realization that 'this is like that'. So I keep banging on building the structure that allows things to fit into place.
In short, awareness is a field property, while perception is awareness of the relation between structures that information has built into one's brain. The question is how awareness couples to physical reality. The general fuzzy idea that prevails today is that arrangements of matter lead to awareness. Instead, the field is inherently aware, and always has been. But the biological evolution reached the point where energy, sensed by bio-physical mechanisms, is stored as information (because it creates formations within) and these then lead to perception. It was a long process, but without the built-in awareness, I don't believe it would have ever happened. No possible arrangement of matter is capable of creating awareness from a non-aware piece of matter. But, given a field that couples to structural flows that 'model' the thing of interest, one can perceive the thing of interest and similar things.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expound.
Have Fun,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 11:01 GMT
Edwin,
I do have the sense of what you are saying, just not quite going all the way there. Rather than seeing gravity as aware, I'm more of the view that awareness uses these physical properties of contraction and expansion, riding the waves, as it were. To take your view completely, from my perspective, I would have to say light is aware and gravity is the forming it choses to manifest. Like light manifests as mass. As awareness manifests as knowledge. Not to say I'm right, but that's just sort of where I'm at, at the moment.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 14:59 GMT
If gravity(and light) are fundamentally aware, wouldn't life, or other manifestations of this awareness be more pervasive?
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
John,
Perhaps part of the problem is that you're trying to fit many things together while I'm trying to derive many things from one. I suspect that there are many more ways to fit things together than there are to derive them from an initial unity. I'll try to address gravity and electromagnetism in a separate comment below. In this comment I'll address your question about pervasive life:
John, like you, I live on a ranch. It's near the Pacific Ocean and has a major creek, a decent natural pond, and two forests, a eucalyptus and a redwood forest. I see life everywhere I look, in any direction. It's hard to see how it could be more pervasive.
If you mean on the moon or on other planets it's harder to say. If one believes that, with a weak primordial consciousness field, it took billions of years for local, mobile, lifeforms to reach our stage of intelligent awareness, then it's pretty clear why this hasn't happened on the moon. Who knows what's on other planets? I'm not an Earth-centrist, but there is no mandate, as far as I can see, that every inch of the universe be covered with life. Once life does come into existence (as sustainable living forms) it operates pretty much as you describe in your many observant and insightful comments.
Thanks again,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 23:51 GMT
Edwin,
I guess I would have to say that my starting point is my own existence. I know that when I look into the abyss, I can't see the bottom of it. I had this experience once, of sensing that anything which would qualify as God, would be so utterly objective and removed from any sense of experience that it would be about as meaningless to life, as life seems to be to it. I remember that it shook me up enough that I felt disoriented, but being tenacious, I kept coming back to the idea. After about three days I thought I'd finally come to grips with it. Then I got a call that my father had died. Suffice to say, I kind of left the idea alone after that and just accepted my subjectivity as who I am.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 01:53 GMT
John,
We all start with our own existence. I still believe the essential difference in our approach is that you're trying to fit many things together while I'm trying to derive many things from one. You range from galaxies to atoms to social and economic entities and bounce all over the place. I can't tell what your starting point is, or if you have one. That is not possible in the approach I'm taking. Yet you argue as if your ideas about awareness and electromagnetism and gravity are based on scientific analysis. I think you just like playing with ideas. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it's not addressing the problem I'm trying to solve. Not that you need to address it. The topic of the contest is based on the reality of information or 'bits' as compared to physical reality. Information brings in the topic of awareness, interpretation, and meaning, which has typically been avoided in physics. I'm taking advantage of the topic to present my ideas.
It's hard to interpret the above except that you had a profound experience followed by an emotional shock. Not really sure what "just accepted my subjectivity as who I am" means. Again, we all accept ourselves. It's hard to address specific questions or comments when the topic wanders all over the place. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. There are people (I hope) who are interested in the problem of deriving our current universe from a single field as opposed to the hundreds of fields that Susskind bases his 'Multiverse' or 'Landscape' on. That is best done from specific hypotheses and equations and analyses and predictions. Otherwise it's just philosophizing and BS'ing.
Have Fun,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 02:51 GMT
Edwin,
I previously expressed my views that empty space is the "single field." It doesn't need explanation, since it doesn't physically consist of anything, not even a singularity. Yet this lack of physicality does give it two properties, infinite and absolute, since it isn't bounded, bent, moved, etc.
Since this brings up the whole Big Bang argument, I was trying to avoid it.
Yes, that overwhelming "objectivity" would be space. (I've spent a fair amount of time staring up at night.)
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 05:05 GMT
Edwin
“In short, awareness is a field property, while perception is awareness of the relation between structures that information has built into one's brain. The question is how awareness couples to physical reality. The general fuzzy idea that prevails today is that arrangements of matter lead to awareness. Instead, the field is inherently aware, and always has been. But the biological...
view entire post
Edwin
“In short, awareness is a field property, while perception is awareness of the relation between structures that information has built into one's brain. The question is how awareness couples to physical reality. The general fuzzy idea that prevails today is that arrangements of matter lead to awareness. Instead, the field is inherently aware, and always has been. But the biological evolution reached the point where energy, sensed by bio-physical mechanisms, is stored as information (because it creates formations within) and these then lead to perception. It was a long process, but without the built-in awareness, I don't believe it would have ever happened. No possible arrangement of matter is capable of creating awareness from a non-aware piece of matter”
This is incorrect, the main reasons being:
1 Awareness is the receipt of physically independently existent input (which happens to be representational of something else, but is existent in its own right). Whereas perception is the resultant output of the subsequent processing of that. How that processing occurs is irrelevant to the physical circumstance in that it does not create it, or in any way affect it. It affects the perception of it.
2 Physical existence demonstrates no form of awareness, only sentient organisms possess the capability to be aware, this being an evolutionary development which takes advantage of certain existent phenomena. In other words, a brick also receives that physical input, but unlike the eye, it has no means of processing it.
3 We are trapped in an existentially closed system. Which is a function of what we can be aware of (ie what we can potentially know), that being determined by a physical process. There could be an alternative, but we cannot know it. And this is science, which is limited to the potentially knowable, indeed, whether we can fully know that is another matter. Asserting how this existence came into being is outwith our possible knowledge.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 05:19 GMT
Hi Paul,
I do not assert how this existence came into being, only how it is, in my opinion. As I state in my abstract, "what is real" is a matter of belief. You have very fixed beliefs, which do not coincide with mine. You also have your own definitions, which do not necessarily coincide with mine either. I am fully aware of your beliefs, which have at least been consistent. This has been the case for quite a while and we both know this, so there is absolutely no point in my arguing with you over this. Thanks for your opinion and good luck in the contest.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 10:01 GMT
Hi Eugene,
If I will be entering next year's contest I have things to learn and copy from your presentation.
A lot of comments have been made so I wont bore you repeating issues like 'awareness', etc
Now here goes...
1. Gravity is a subject where even Angels like Newton fear to tread (recall 'hypothesis non fingo') but you have boldly tackled aspects of it....
view entire post
Hi Eugene,
If I will be entering next year's contest I have things to learn and copy from your presentation.
A lot of comments have been made so I wont bore you repeating issues like 'awareness', etc
Now here goes...
1. Gravity is a subject where even Angels like Newton fear to tread (recall 'hypothesis non fingo') but you have boldly tackled aspects of it. Kudos!
RE: "Yet gravity, which is real and which DOES INTERACT WITH ITSELF must, in some meaning of the word, be aware of itself". This SERIOUSLY ATTACKS one of the important principles of physics, the action-reaction principle, by which I mean no particle or field can interact with itself. You may want to mention self-gravitation of things like a star, etc. This interaction is between the particles constituting the star and not a particle or field interacting with itself. Awareness can therefore hold, IF and only if this principle must be jettisoned and particles and fields can interact with themselves.
2. "the threshold—essentially two-state—which provides the only real meaning of ‘bit’, ... Thus a bit has meaning only when a real change in form of the structure (in-formational change) occurs".
RE: I agree. What is the most fundamental basis of 'structure' available to Nature? And if this structure is discrete, can it undergo change? If so, what kind of two-state change?
3. On the 'Not-two' aspect of reality,
RE: this is a very, very fundamental issue. I have replied you on my blog. You may wish to see
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.1b.txt
and See Aristotle Metaphysics Book 1, part 3...
"… Parmenides seems in places to speak with more insight. For, claiming that, besides the existent, nothing non-existent exists, he thinks that of necessity one thing exists, viz. the existent and nothing else". In a two-state change, cant we attribute 1 to existent and 0 to not existent?, taking cognisance that monads which are fundamental units of space (re: Pythagoreans) can according to Leibniz emerge from nothing and be annihilated to from nothing.. (see his first 8 paragraphs. Others deal mainly with God, soul, etc. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibmona.pdf).
Finally, gravitational action is action-at-a-distance. How is this effected? Some say via exchange of force particles, some say by curving space. I didnt quite get the mechanism you would be proposing or will it be out of place to ask considering the scope of the essay contest?
Please accept my high regards
Cheers,
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 23:10 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 itself...
view entire post
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 itself and in the process create mass", and he conjectured, "curvature makes gravity without matter possible". The Calabi-Yau manifold confirms our Master equation-based only on gravity -but his conjecture was based on special geometry in which "time is frozen".
As I mentioned in technical notes, the uncharged electromagnetic field has energy, hence mass, but only interacts with charge, hence does not react with itself. The gravitomagnetic field energy has mass and interacts with mass, hence does interact with itself (in local motion). This has two consequences. The self-interaction vortex leads to soliton-like particles and the particles can be confined in a 'self-generated' field, hence achieving what is currently assigned to "color" in QCD. Thus the one field can interact with itself in a Yang-Mills gauge theory of mass. I would replace the "gluons" [which are considered to interact with themselves] by the C-field. In this case QCD has 10 extra parameters used to "fit" data.
2.) I'm pleased that you agree the threshold provides the real meaning of 'bit'.
The quantum analysis (which falls out of my master equation) leads to discreteness only for 'bound' systems. A free electron (say) has no well-defined properties (other than charge, which, in my theory results from binding the particle together.) When it is bound to a proton then it has discrete orbit-determined wavelength and energy. Thus a hydrogen atom can undergo structural change to record a 'bit' of information. Many higher levels of structure can be 'in'-formed.
3.) I will answer 3 in a later comment.
Finally you ask about gravitational action and action-at-a-distance. The first FQXi contest I participated in was "What's ultimately possible in physics?" I conclude my essay with:
"What is ultimately impossible is to explain gravity and consciousness; the essence of G and C (self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious. This defines the ultimate possibility of physics."
In other words, gravity, as the souce of action, matter, and awareness will always be a mystery. But it's behavior is describable, and it's self-evolution may be 'understood'. It's essence will never be understood. Newton was surely right to tread carefully there.
Thanks again. It's a pleasure to discuss these things with you.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
PS. As I have provided links to two earlier essays, I may as well provide the link to my last essay, The Nature of the Wave Function. In it I present a formulation that, in Geometric Algebra terms is a 'trivector', defined to have volume and orientation but not a fixed 'shape'. It occurs to me that this in some ways describes your 'monad' as an amorphous extended entity.
view post as summary
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 05:35 GMT
Edwin
“I do not assert how this existence came into being, only how it is, in my opinion”
Yes you do. Because in your response to John, as quoted, you say: “It was a long process, but without the built-in awareness, I don't believe it would have ever happened. No possible arrangement of matter is capable of creating awareness from a non-aware piece of matter”.
This is...
view entire post
Edwin
“I do not assert how this existence came into being, only how it is, in my opinion”
Yes you do. Because in your response to John, as quoted, you say: “It was a long process, but without the built-in awareness, I don't believe it would have ever happened. No possible arrangement of matter is capable of creating awareness from a non-aware piece of matter”.
This is an assertion about how existence came into being. It is the fundamental premise upon which your theory rests [note in a subsequent response to John: “while I'm trying to derive many things from one”]. And it is wrong, because there is no experienceable evidence that this is so.
The start point can only be, ie we cannot know why this came about (that is the function of religion-to ‘fill this gap’), that:
There is existence of some form or other, Based on input received, we can identify that the form of existence we can know has two fundamental characteristics:
-what occurs, does so, independently of the processes which detect it
-it involves difference, ie comparison of inputs reveals difference, and therefore that there is change/alteration.
Since there is existence (which necessitates uniqueness) and difference (which necessitates a different uniqueness), then physical existence, ie that which is potentially knowable to us is sequence. Physical existence is a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states of whatever comprises it, each such state being the reality at the time that it occurs. This is the start point for physics.
“You have very fixed beliefs”
I do not have any beliefs. I am stating, generically, what occurs (as above). This exposes another fallacy in your thinking. Physical existence is all that we can potentially know. Knowing being a function of a physical process. We are in an existentially closed system. Alternatives, which may or may not exist, or not available to us. We must investigate existence as manifest to us, which is definitive, and not invoke beliefs about what or may not otherwise be there.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 06:06 GMT
"I do not have any beliefs."
That statement alone is why I will not argue with you.
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 04:30 GMT
Edwin
You do not have to argue with me, just point out where my statement is wrong. It is a simple statement, therefore, where it is wrong, according to you, must also be simple to explain.
There is no room for beliefs in science, physical existence as manifest to us is the only subject of concern.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I have a simple question.
Since you use "aware" or "awareness" about 36 times, can you clarify its 'technical' meaning, if any?
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
I forgot to mention that I liked these:
"Smolin says "it took 55 circles to get epicycles to work", while Susskind recently summarized physics as depending on from 25 to 150 parameters, whose values are set 'by hand'. How can physicists believe theories that require 25 to 150 parameters to fit data?"
and
"ET Jaynes reminds us that:
'…a false premise built into a model which is never questioned cannot be removed by any amount of new data.' "
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 21:55 GMT
Hi Lev,
That's a reasonable question, but it doesn't have a simple answer. For one thing, it's the fundamental 'entity' of my theory, and fundamentals are often undefined by specific words. The theory tends to define them. But more significantly, it is subjective, which increases the difficulty. I am self-aware and aware, as are you, so I assume you know what it is. It is simpler to...
view entire post
Hi Lev,
That's a reasonable question, but it doesn't have a simple answer. For one thing, it's the fundamental 'entity' of my theory, and fundamentals are often undefined by specific words. The theory tends to define them. But more significantly, it is subjective, which increases the difficulty. I am self-aware and aware, as are you, so I assume you know what it is. It is simpler to say what it's not. It's not thinking, reasoning, remembering, projecting, or any other logic-based or information-based activity. These all involve the interaction of the field awareness with the local mass flow(s) in a neural network, which, as I indicated in a comment above, can involve countless neural interconnections in a 4D (i.e., 'dynamic') structure that is created by incoming energy which becomes 'information' when it is registered.
Consider the definition of 'mass' and 'gravity' and 'gravitational field' in general relativity:
In my essay I noted Yau points out just how poorly mass is defined in general relativity (very poorly!). To this I would add the following from Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's 'Gravitation' (page 399):
"...nowhere has a precise definition of the term "gravitational field" been given -- nor will one be given. Many different mathematical entities are associated with gravitation: the metric, the Riemannian curvature tensor, the Ricci curvature tensor, the curvature scalar, the covariant derivative, the connection coefficients, etc. Each of these plays an important role in gravitation theory [and] the terms "gravitational field" and "gravity" refer in a vague, collective sort of way to all of these entities."
That's pretty much how the definition of "awareness" has to stand.
I think you picked my favorite Jaynes saying as well. And the number of parameters involved in our current theories does give one something to think about does it not?
Thanks for reading and commenting Lev,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 05:45 GMT
Edwin (Lev)
On the contrary, as per my comment above, 'aware' has a very simple physical definition. It involves the receipt of physical input, which is then subsequently processed, that not being a physical process. A brick receives physical input, it just does not have the evolved capability to then process it.
This is the somewhat obvious point. Existence is independent of us,...
view entire post
Edwin (Lev)
On the contrary, as per my comment above, 'aware' has a very simple physical definition. It involves the receipt of physical input, which is then subsequently processed, that not being a physical process. A brick receives physical input, it just does not have the evolved capability to then process it.
This is the somewhat obvious point. Existence is independent of us, and what we can know of it is determined (and limited) by the physical mechanism whereby we (and all sentient organisms)are enabled to be aware of it.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 02:35 GMT
In a comment above John said, "I would say light is aware and gravity is the form it chooses to manifest."
I did not ask John how he came to this conclusion, but his comment made me realize that it might be relevant to describe how I came to my conclusion. I did not just wake up one day and say "I think gravity is aware." Instead, after writing a long book about life (unpublished) I...
view entire post
In a comment above John said, "I would say light is aware and gravity is the form it chooses to manifest."
I did not ask John how he came to this conclusion, but his comment made me realize that it might be relevant to describe how I came to my conclusion. I did not just wake up one day and say "I think gravity is aware." Instead, after writing a long book about life (unpublished) I realized that I had effectively represented (without saying so) consciousness as a field. I then asked myself, if consciousness is a field, how does it interact physically? I knew force equations for fields, but what could the force equation for the consciousness field be? In about two hours I decided that the only thing that made sense to me was a Lorentz-like equation that depended on mass and velocity. This was for many reasons that are laid out in 'Gene Man's World' and are too lengthy for a comment.
Although I took general relativity as a graduate student, we did not cover Einstein's weak field equations, and if I ever knew them I had forgotten them. And as an atomic and molecular physicist at NASA, I did not work in general relativity. So it was only later that I realized I had "rediscovered" the weak field equations of gravity, first proposed by Maxwell, investigated by Heaviside, and then derived from Einstein's field equations.
The point here is that I did not come to the key consciousness equation through gravity, but instead came to the gravity equation by analysis of consciousness! I consider this significant. It is quite different from one day deciding "I think gravity is aware!" My master equation, based on one initial field, I derived later and it leads to the circulation equation and the force equation as well as a generalized quantum equation and Schrodinger's equation. Over the last seven years I have found a number of reasons to consider this a good theory and have not found good reasons to reject it. Obviously it's a hard sell.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Edwin,
Not to range too far afield here, but you might want to think about plugging political and social movements into that formula as well.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 03:09 GMT
John,
Thanks for the suggestion. There are many more fundamental steps I have to do at this time. My first response would be that there are many more appropriate ways to model socio-political movements. But that is merely a gut feel. The fact is that non-linear effects are famously anti-intuitive, and I don't yet have enough experience with my new non-linearizing technique to have developed any feel for where the limits are. It is a big change from my earlier assumptions, and I'm still digesting the implications.
Living in the middle of a big ranch I am sometimes tempted to wonder if there is not something like a consciousness-field density factor that operates in big cities! In some ways they seem to resemble the bee hives that I have all over the place.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 13:44 GMT
Hi Edwin and Hi Lev,
I agree with Edwin, that 'fundamental entities' may sometimes be best definable in the negative terms. That is in terms of what is 'not aware'.
In this line, I will like to know from Ed, whether Computers and Drones that see and accurately shoot missiles are aware?
Penrose talked on this at length in his book, The Emperor's New Mind. Can Artificial Intelligence when further advanced become or simulate Awareness?
Then, can awareness be destroyed or created?
Can what loses its existence still be aware? Can what comes into existence from nothing acquire awareness?
Although I dont wholly buy his idea, Leibniz talks of something like 'awareness' in his Monadology, which he says is similar to 'perception'. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibmona.pdf
Of course, these are tricky questions I have asked and Ed has accused me of asking such :)
Cheers,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
Hi everyone,
I just want to state a position regarding "awareness" radically different from those discussed here.
Of course, we don't know what "awareness" means scientifically, but I gradually came to the conclusion--identical to that of von Neumann--that whatever it means "it cannot fail to differ considerably from what we consciously and explicitly consider as mathematics", and hence what we presently consider as physics.
What he meant, and I came to the same point also, is that our basic formal language (equations in particular) is fundamentally inadequate to deal with such issues, i.e. we need radically different formal language, which will *eventually* interface with the present one.
So that, in particular, if gravity is "aware", we don't have formal means to address it.
Of course, I do address in my essay a proposal for a new formalism.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 17:55 GMT
Edwin,
One reason they tend to be anti-intuitive is that while rational assumptions are concentrated on the known and thus incorporated information, non-linear activity is a scalar, so its like pressure seeking out weak points, while rationality and thus predictability tends to be focused on the prior, known features.
The serial is linear, much as we move forward, while the non-linear is scalar and it equates to ones own bubble of awareness and how it expands and contracts, which explains why it is associated with the heart.
Combine the two and you have consumption and digestion/consolidation, absorbing the information and energy for forward motion.
Being a little too sensitive to other's presence, consciousness is very much a field in that respect. The problem is that most people are sensitized to those around them and naturally want to be either be part of the group, or, like us, avoid the group, while it is those with "thick-skins" who are better at climbing to the top of and controlling these communal hives. The result is that they end up breaking the methods of control when focused on more selfish ends. Much like monarchs and now bankers abused the means by which they served the larger community. Cycles within cycles.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Edwin,
Here is an interesting
article about synaesthesia.
For want of a better description, I've had a number of experiences where I wasn't sure the "me" was me, or the person I was with. Extrapolating that to life in general, we are all likely one large organism, seeing things through lots of different filters and perspectives. This goes back to my very simplistic observation that when we add things together, we get one of something larger, so we are not so much adding the contents of the sets of numbers, but adding the sets and getting a larger set. So therefore the parts add up to a larger whole, like the parts of our bodies add up to a whole body, not just a sum of parts. Extend this line of thinking to the larger community and it suggests ways to get around the social atomization currently defining our lives. Not that we necessarily want some kumbya thing, but how we relate to the entire environment in which we live. You might say we are what we are conscious of, rather than just the reductionistic neural functions.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
Hi Lev,
You said "I just want to state a position regarding "awareness" radically different from those discussed here".
I don't really think that's the case. When you asked for my definition, I told you that it was *not* thinking, etc. I believe that what von Neumann is discussing that "cannot fail to differ considerably from what we consciously and explicitly consider as mathematics", is thinking, not awareness. And I have already laid out in my essay and elsewhere that the essence of thinking *is* based on logical and mathematical circuitry (the math being mostly differencing operations and summing or integrating operation).
And as for "if gravity is "aware", we don't have formal means to address it", I clearly state that also, and note that the mathematics only deals with the interface to the objective physical aspects of reality, not the subjective 'awareness' aspect of reality.
This is neither pro nor con your 'new formalism' but I think you have not really understood my essay, because I do not see anything radically different in what you said above. It is essentially what I am saying. It may be that you do not recognize a difference between awareness and thinking, which is largely what I base my discussion on.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 19:13 GMT
John,
I tend to agree with most of what you said in the above comments. And thanks for the article on synesthesia. I agree that it is probably 'neurological quirks' that are responsible for the extraordinary perceptual powers. The essential 'awareness', if based on gravity, is the same for all of us. But the organization, operation, and fine-tuning of the brain probably results in a fantastic range of perceptual capability, which is also affected by the environment (city or rural, etc.) and internal parameters such as diet, stress level, psychedelics, etc.
As you note elsewhere, the primary function of the brain is filtering. Without filtering we would be overwhelmed with stimuli. Some people are overwhelmed. Some people have pretty thick shields.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 19:41 GMT
Edwin,
"the primary function of the brain is filtering"
And navigation.
Non-linear and linear.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 19:45 GMT
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 20:18 GMT
Edwin,
You say: "It may be that you do not recognize a difference between awareness and thinking, which is largely what I base my discussion on."
I don't believe that the dividing line between awareness and thinking is as sharp as you suggest or that the formal language adequate for describing one is different from that for describing the other.
Otherwise--if we assume a two-stage information processing system (awareness + "thinking")--we would get an immensely more complex scientific picture requiring another formal mechanism, and we would be faced with an impossible question of how and why the next information system ("thinking") arose.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 20:35 GMT
Lev,
One way to think of it might be that awareness is the medium and thinking is the message. The energy/field and the form it takes.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 20:42 GMT
Lev,
We simply have a difference of opinion on this point. Computers and pattern recognition are very simple and at the same time very impressive. The speech recognition software I am using continues to amaze me, and there are countless such examples. But I am quite sure that 'awareness' is a separate order of being. It is not just "very efficient" processing, or anything of that nature. Thus computers can effectively "think" but are not (and will not be) "aware".
On the other hand, unfocussed awareness is an amorphous thing that is almost impossible to define, so that in that sense you are correct that there is no hard and fast dividing line separating awareness from thinking because we never experience awareness completely separate from thinking.
If these were simple, easy to explain issues, the problem would have been solved millennia ago, when it was first discussed.
In my abstract I state that the nature of reality is a matter of belief. This fact is clearly on display in the FQXi contests.
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 22:50 GMT
Sure Edwin, best wishes and good luck with your essay!
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 23:15 GMT
Nice touch that 'Sure'. Good luck to you too Lev!
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 23:24 GMT
Doesn't "sure" here means "of course"?
Cheers, Lev
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 04:46 GMT
Lev
“Of course, we don't know what "awareness" means scientifically”
Yes we do. You are falling into the same trap as Edwin and many others, by not first differentiating the knowable from the not-knowable. We can only know (be aware) of what is manifest to us (hypothesis being in effect virtual sensing). In other words , physical existence is that form of existence which is...
view entire post
Lev
“Of course, we don't know what "awareness" means scientifically”
Yes we do. You are falling into the same trap as Edwin and many others, by not first differentiating the knowable from the not-knowable. We can only know (be aware) of what is manifest to us (hypothesis being in effect virtual sensing). In other words , physical existence is that form of existence which is all that is potentially knowable to us. Whether we can attain knowledge of all that is doubtful, but another issue, the point is that the potential was there. Whether there is an alternative is irrelevant, because we cannot know it. And knowing it, ie being aware of it, involves the receipt of physical input (supplemented by the hypothesising of input which could have been received had some identifiable physical issue not prevented that). The subsequent processing of this input received is irrelevant, as that is not physics. The utilisation of representational devices to express this knowledge is another matter.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 06:07 GMT
Paul,
I would ask, politely, that you refrain from commenting on my blog, and I will do so on yours. I do not accept your idea that the world is a movie, one sequential frame after another. Nor do I credit your claim that you "have no beliefs". But I do not go on your blog and constantly attack your position. I know you are impressed with your arguments, because you spread them everywhere, but they are not welcome here. Cannot you control yourself?
hide replies
William Amos Carine wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 15:51 GMT
Hello Klingman,
This was an interesting read and I'm sure it struck other peoples hearts as well. It was nice to hear of developments in gravity. The awareness view here presented has multiple corollaries. It would give some reason why the limited human brain can start to unravel the mysteries of the deep, if the mind is a part of the greater whole. The natural question is one of death of this great system, or perhaps more appropriately put, the existence of some outsides beyond an not find-able edge, or the initial conditions. It's tough to talk about science and such question without using somewhat religious terminology, which shows their close link concerning the impetus to arising thought. Yet, if science is to be maintained as a standard, facts and figures must be found to accompany this emotional progress on the gravity question in the community. Not to say you or anyone else hasn't, but on the whole and rather blatantly, most physicists are not working on it.
Best,
W. Amos
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 18:58 GMT
Hi Amos,
I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. I believe you have put your finger on the key point when you note "it would give some reason why the limited human brain can start to unravel the mysteries of the deep, if the mind is a part of the greater whole." This is not unrelated to the statement in your essay that "one does not arrive fundamental changes by looking at huge sets of data [but] by sheer gut and intuition [do] real advances in thinking happen. The mind guesses the form of nature."
You also note that "physical laws are often built on analysis of difference." That is the key operation I used to derive 'feature vectors' from differences in intra-set and inter-set properties of measurement numbers, which in turn derived from physical threshold-based counter circuits, from which all numbers are derived.
You also mentioned "space being made out of the same thing as the matter in it." This is almost certainly what Einstein meant when he said "there is no space absent of field."
Thanks again for reading and commenting.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 19:44 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
An excellent question: can computers be aware?
Considering that I posit awareness in the field, locally concentrated near mass flow, then to some extent the answer would have to be yes. But I'm sure you're asking can they be aware "like humans" (or dogs, etc.).
I don't think so, for the following reasons. If local awareness depends on velocity of mass flow, both...
view entire post
Hi Akinbo,
An excellent question: can computers be aware?
Considering that I posit awareness in the field, locally concentrated near mass flow, then to some extent the answer would have to be yes. But I'm sure you're asking can they be aware "like humans" (or dogs, etc.).
I don't think so, for the following reasons. If local awareness depends on velocity of mass flow, both the velocity of electrons and the mass flow are very small. (The electron's high mass density complicates this answer, but I don't think it changes the result.) Even more significant is the organization of the flow. Computer flows (as currently constituted) are sequentially clocked and have no pattern that relates to reality. By this I mean that I can design the processor that processes the scene from a microprocessor, an FPGA, a gate array, a custom integrated circuit, or even vacuum tubes (in theory!). Each of these implementations will be completely different in the sense that, while executing exactly the same algorithm, the timing and spatial distribution of pulsed movement of electrons will be very different in each circuit. And in none of the circuits will the flow have any analogous relation to the scene being processed.
Contrast this with the way brains work. For simplicity take a rat's whiskers. The whiskers are laid out on his face in approximately 5 x 5 array and the nerves from the area preserve the pattern in the brain! That is, the nerves travel to a corresponding 5 x 5 array network in the brain. Thus the brain actually models the space being sensed (i.e., the root of the whiskers). There is nothing corresponding to this organization in computers.
Additionally I believe all mass flows in brains are complex 3-D flows (that vary in time) while all computers flows are essentially 2-D. And the gated flows of vesicles across synaptic gaps and the train of pulses in the axons are essentially analog (i.e, proportional) while computer flows are completely digital, flow or no flow. So brains have 3-D flows that vary in time and provide parallel analog processing of signals that, I believe, effectively model a 3-D world being observed by the brain. Computers have 2-D pulsed flows that vary spatially in ways essentially uncorrelated with the 3-D world being sensed. These I believe are very significant aspects that relate to say drones that see and shoot down missiles.
If the computer is "aware of" anything, it will effectively be aware of noise. And the vaunted ability of computers to "rewire" or "reprogram" themselves, so exciting when one first hears about it, has not produced any remarkable results that I know of.
The Dragon software that I'm using to write this comment inputs my voice and outputs ASCII text, but has absolutely zero awareness of the meaning of the words, which yet are easily interpreted by your learned brain structures. Despite the NSA's efforts to change this situation, the best they can do is recognize suspicious patterns that are then brought to the attention of a human intelligence.
I hope the sense of the above comes through. I see these problems is inherent, and not really subject to solution by those who favor AI. Nor do I believe anything essential changes with "quantum computers", which I do not believe will ever approach silicon-based computing except, perhaps, on simple factoring problems that are of no real import.
There is another aspect that touches on your question 3.) above so I will handle it in another comment.
Thank you for your most interesting questions that go to the heart of the matter.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 23:38 GMT
Akinbo,
In an earlier comment above you ask the tough question, 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 conception or whether one can be aware of this fact in direct...
view entire post
Akinbo,
In an earlier comment above you ask the tough question, 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 conception or whether one can be aware of this fact in direct fashion.
I choose, as a physicist, to identify the "one thing" as the primordial gravity field, and attempt to show how our current universe, including us, can and did evolve from this one thing. To do so I necessarily include in the nature of the field the aspect of awareness, based partly on the self-interaction of the field that is necessary for the one thing to evolve (since nothing else existed!) and partly on a conclusion that I have reached that awareness, as I experience it, cannot be created from material building blocks, but must be inherent in the Participatory Universe that Wheeler intuited.
But this then implies, as Amos noted above, that we can, being evolved parts of the one thing, be directly aware of the one thing. Yet if this is the case, why is not everyone aware of this, and further, what does it mean to be aware of it?
In my essay I discuss how the existence of a threshold allows the creation of "two-state" systems, idealized as logic gates and the interconnection of these gates can produce numbers and such numbers can be generated by energy input to the 'counter'. I then discuss how we can, algorithmically, treat these numbers to derive 'feature vectors' which are the essential ingredients of physics. This process can be internalized in our brains to represent the world as "things", or what Zen calls "the Ten Thousand things".
Now whether awareness arises from the biological fact of putting the right building blocks in the right order, or from its inherent existence as a primordial field, in either case human beings identify as 'separate individuals', generally denoted by the term 'ego'.
If all we are is 'meat machines' then that's probably as far as we can go. But if awareness is the core property of the universe, then one might expect that it's possible to have some direct indication of this. Unfortunately, the nature of ego is to divide the universe into 'me' and 'not-me', an inherent two-fold reality.
Is it possible to transcend this? Many reports claim that is.
Abraham Maslow's studies, related in "The Peak Experience" claim that many people naturally have episodes wherein they experience the 'one-ness' of the universe, also termed 'being one-with the universe'.
William James in "Varieties of Religious Experience" came to the same conclusion.
Jill Bolte Taylor's "My Stroke of Insight" describes the state as she (a neuro-anatomist) experienced it while having a stroke.
Innumerable reports of LSD and psilocybin experience indicate the same thing.
All cultures have a mystical tradition based on experiences of this sort.
In my opinion every one of us was born with this general awareness, before our brains learned to distinguish 'me' from 'it' based on sensory input.
I also believe it is essentially a 'topological' awareness, based on *connectivity*, wherein the metric overlay of 'distance' is (almost) completely suppressed.
What is absolutely certain is that it can neither be adequately described in words (or math) nor can it be reached by talking, reading, or "thinking" about it. It is apparently reached through a biological state, either naturally, as Maslow and James report, or chemically induced, or stroke induced. Those who have never experienced it (or have forgotten the experience) tend to believe it's hogwash (or possibly codswallop). However it would appear that millions have experienced it, and the general consensus is that it's 1.) real, 2.) extremely positive, and 3.) has 'religious' overtones.
According to Zen and the Tao, it cannot be reached with words, but for a taste of the experience, I find D T Suzuki's translation of
"Inscribed on the Believing Mind" to be exquisite.
I hope this adequately addresses the 'not-two' question.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
PS. This may seem to border on 'mystical', but I personally find it far less mystical than the belief that "math lives in some Platonic realm". It is based on direct experience, not abstract concept.
view post as summary
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 05:04 GMT
Edwin
"Now whether awareness arises from the biological fact of putting the right building blocks in the right order, or from its inherent existence as a primordial field, in either case human beings identify as 'separate individuals', generally denoted by the term 'ego'"
What evidence is there that this is a physical process, which you are labelling as awareness (and I cannot understand what it could be-not what you want it to be- other than what is normally termed awareness)was existent from the outset, and not just the result of an evolutionary process?
And incidentally, physical existence is not just the province of humans, it is all that is potentially knowable by any sentient organism. Indeed, if a non-human landed on this planet and could explain a way to utilise a different sense which has not developed here, that would be included too.
Paul
post approved
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 12:38 GMT
Okay, Edwin. Will keep my mind open and "aware". If you dont have it, you may like to read this classic on Parmenides. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.1b.txt
Cheerio
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
Akinbo,
I read the Parmenides paper. Very interesting. I would be interested in what you see as the main thing to be taken from it.
Anonymous replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 22:55 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I made two more responses to your thoughts in my own blog, and continue here on the connection between science and religion, which is touched on both above and below in your blog. It seems that we are ultimately driven to religious issues when we try to sort out the meaning of life.
[Note that my concerns that one of my responses to you had "disappeared" prove to be...
view entire post
Dear Edwin,
I made two more responses to your thoughts in my own blog, and continue here on the connection between science and religion, which is touched on both above and below in your blog. It seems that we are ultimately driven to religious issues when we try to sort out the meaning of life.
[Note that my concerns that one of my responses to you had "disappeared" prove to be false, (or, at least, it reappeared) so ignore my comment in the second article about the previous one disappearing .]
As I have already said, I am hindered from fully understanding your essay because I do not understand the meaning of your equations, etc. But hopefully I can sense the direction you are working and raise meaningful issues and comments.
There are three major religious or metaphysical options, I think: the biblical, the secular, and the pagan views. Our natural tendency seems to be toward the latter two (which have a similar general pattern), not the biblical. And indeed, the Hebrew community, and then the Christian, have tended to slip continually back into a secular or pagan mode of believing. Yahweh is quite pointedly described as a "jealous" God, chastising us for wandering away from faithfulness to Himself. That would make sense only if the biblical view were true and the others false.
I remember being surprised when Carl Sagan indicated that he leaned toward Hinduism for his cosmic inspiration. Others in this contest have shown similar proclivities. My assumption up to the 1960’s that paganism was dead proved to be quite in error. Secularism, I think, has proven to be the least stable of the three – being too impersonal and thus depersonalizing. The original Buddhism was atheist, in a way “secular”, no personal gods, but people yearned for personality, and so ended up inventing thousands of them.
The question I want to address is whether one of the three cosmological options (pagan, secular, or biblical) has a better chance at making sense of life, with a reasonable cosmos in which science would make sense and flourish. It seems to me that the biblical worldview has the best chance at winning that cup.
Five reasons: (1) Pagan philosophy never produced a flourishing science of the empirical world because it inherently favored the intellectual world of abstract reason – Platonism, neo-Platonism, etc.
(2) Although the Greeks produced the science of epistemology (thinking about how to think), it tended to shun using that to understand the world of time and space, which they wanted to transcend – because it seemed to them too chaotic and unfriendly to invest time and energy to understand.
(3) Also Eastern religions, with their drive to transcend the violent and sad world of time and space never produced anything like empirical science.
(4) The empirical sciences took off only under the biblical worldview during the late Middle Ages.
(5) The cosmological argument for God provides a way to integrate the major issues of metaphysics, such as: possibility, existence, causality, epistemology, truth, personhood, community, the meaning of life, etc. I suspect that those things cannot be integrated outside the biblical worldview.
Your intent has been expressed as making no claims about original beginnings, though your comments tend to be Eastern-religion-friendly. I think that will happen whenever philosophy of science tries to find its own stability from within the circle of phenomenal existence. So, I do not think one can separate metaphysics (first beginnings) from physics – if metaphysics is the undergirding and explanation of physics, as I understand it to be. Your notion of gravity having awareness would itself raise metaphysical issues and have metaphysical implications, would it not?
So, my essay is a very foreshortened version of my explanation for that aspect of the biblical view of things, providing a metaphysical explanation for the rise of science, and thus whether its or bits are more fundamental. My answer is that neither are really fundamental, they both presuppose the biblical creator ex-nihilo, and that there is no way to reasonably explain either the cosmos or science (which requires the reasonableness of the cosmos) apart from the biblical cosmos.
One can restrict the field of inquiry to the secular view, as you do, for the sake of convenience, but the wider issues will assert themselves nevertheless.
I hope to get more into the discussion (before things close up) on whether things like gravity can be “aware”. I am absolutely delighted at the spirit of the essays and authors generally, an attempt to find the truth of a serious matter before us, all with a good spirit and willingness to learn from each other.
BTW, I have mentioned a few times another website, “Common Sense Science”, at www.commonsensescience.org. They believe themselves to be doing (with all the math included) a fundamental adjustment of relativity and quantum mechanics to fit a more traditional view of physics. I heartily recommend folks like yourself who understand the math taking a look at it. I would like to get responses as to whether they are doing a credible job or not. Their stuff would impact on the issue of this contest very directly, I would think. Philosophically, at least, I think they are doing well, addressing concerns I have had for a long time about the direction of physics (as indicated by the question of this contest).
Blessings, Earle
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
Doctor Klingman,
This essay is indubitably the best essay so far presented in this competition. As a doddering amateur realist, I would just like to make one comment. I contend in my essay BITTERS, that reality is unique, once.
There is no way I can thank you for bringing to my attention the results of the Planck 2013 expedition: “Planck satellite data shows with high precision that we live in a remarkable simple universe.”
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Joe,
Thank you very much for that appraisal.
I have read your essay and am in basic agreement with you. But there are aspects of reality -- perhaps "chaotic attractors" -- that produce 'repetition' or 'near repetition'. As I point out, without such we would not even have language, as nothing would ever be stable enough to describe. Thus for example, while no two snowflakes are alike, we can make reasonable approximations of how much sunlight is reflected from Antarctica from trillions of snowflakes. That is what science is about. But your reminder of the nature of reality is very welcome.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 15:12 GMT
Respectfully Doctor Klingman,
You wrote in your essay that you had self awareness. Obviously, it is clear from the sheer brilliance of the writing that you are indeed gifted enough to have self awareness. You may be the last man in America to have self awareness.
I never had self awareness. From my birth to the present no matter in which direction I faced, I have only been able to see humanly fabricated structures or humanly explored terrains. My nostrils have only ever received wafts of humanly compromised fumes. My mouth has only tasted humanly adulterated food and liquids. Man made sounds have constantly drowned out any bird songs or dog barks or cock crows. Only fabricated materials have ever touched me.
There is no me here. I have three options. I can be a conventionally, consistently, or conspicuously conformist.
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 18:46 GMT
Edwin and Joe,
"There is no way I can thank you for bringing to my attention the results of the Planck 2013 expedition: 'Planck satellite data shows with high precision that we live in a remarkable simple universe.'"
However, what about
"Huge-LQG" (Huge-large-quasar-group), and neighbors another large clump, the "CCLQG" phenomena?
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 20:38 GMT
Joe,
Self-aware or not, you are unique!
Lev,
The focus of the paper I referenced was on inflation models and the conclusion was that many complex inflation models are eliminated by the Planck results.
As I noted to Robert below, my C-field model qualitatively accounts for the WMAP and COBE multi-pole anomalies and the spiral galaxy distribution, and potentially provides dark energy and dark matter, although I have absolutely no idea whether this makes quantitative sense. The new nonlinear technique offers a greater range of possibility but decreases my intuitive feel for the solutions. I am currently focusing my efforts on particle problems where the numbers are well known. Cosmological numbers, such as the thickness of the Milky Way, can double overnight, so I never know what cosmological numbers to trust.
I am aware of the quasar cluster but I've not put much thought into how it fits my model. My gut feel is that if I can explain the multi-pole anomaly, the rest will fall out.
Thanks for pointing to this data. Whatever the final outcome I think it's clear that the current cosmological models are on life support.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
Robert Bennett wrote on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 04:13 GMT
Edwin,
Re your iconoclastic survey of the status of modern physics.... Bravo! Your insights into the wild and wooly world of physics research are a refreshing .... well, just refreshing says it best.
The difficulties of experimental testing of extrema theories, like particle physics and cosmology, seem to tempt some of our colleagues to cheat on sci method testing in order to stoke...
view entire post
Edwin,
Re your iconoclastic survey of the status of modern physics.... Bravo! Your insights into the wild and wooly world of physics research are a refreshing .... well, just refreshing says it best.
The difficulties of experimental testing of extrema theories, like particle physics and cosmology, seem to tempt some of our colleagues to cheat on sci method testing in order to stoke the imagination. When objective analysis leads to an impasse, a resort is made to bypass testing or to shave away hairy problems with Occam's Razor, a subjective and unscientific standard.
Special thanks are in order for the revealing review of the QED skeleton in the closet. Apparently QED is really only Quantum ElectrON Dynamics, finely tuned parametrically to agree with electron testing, but QMD would require another tune-up for the muon... perhaps another alpha 'constant' and doubling of the parametric set? And then noting that QED has all the predictive power of Darwinism.... breathtaking expository precision but nonexistent predictions.
Interesting, Edwin... Why isn't this specificity trumpeted along with the 6 sigma QED compliance with reality?
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world!".....said Archimedes. Now this has been updated to, "Give me enough 'tunable parameters' and I shall completely curve-fit reality with least-squares laws!
"Planck satellite data shows with high precision that we live in a remarkably simple universe.".... but maybe too simplistic. More than the inflationary paradigm is in trouble, post Planck-2013... just the iceberg's tip, Edwin.
The CMB as officially interpreted: the remnant radiation from the surface of last BB scattering, capturing the primeval structure of temp differences then, for all time and all places. We are looking - we are told - back in time 13 billion years to the first formation of matter.
However, a series of unexpected multiple multipole alignments had appeared in the COBE and WMAP sky scans, but were assumed to be temporary artifacts that the Planck survey would erase.... Instead, Planck affirmed the anomalies even more credibly.
The combination of a complete lack of any known systematic error, and long odds against random alignment was such a threat to the BB model that the combo has earned the initial low-alignment anomaly the nickname - "Axis of Evil". The axial correlation between multipole harmonics evident in all 3 CMB sky scans matched the local sky geometry to a very high CL.... the Leo direction, equinoxes, ecliptic and galactic planes were all there. And now there are more.... a lot more. All of these anomalies contradict the standard model of the universe and have no explanation in the LCDM, the standard Big Bang model. We are told we are seeing a pattern ubiquitous in space and formed far back in time, yet what we see is what is in the sky now - the local symmetries and celestial landmarks of our solar system and galaxy. As if when peering into deep space with our telescopes, we would actually see the surrounding buildings and trees in our own backyard! And how is it that the Andromedans see our solar and galactic alignments in their local sky?
There are not one, not two, but three giant elephants in the living room.
1) What explains this evidence so contradictory to the conventional cosmology for the CMB, BB, LCDM and even the Copernican principle?
2) Why is this evidence treated as non-emergent in the world of physics?
3) Why is the vast CMB universe seemingly centered on an insignificant planet like Earth?
All the best,
Robert
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 07:38 GMT
Robert,
What a gracious remark you begin with.
I could not recall which essay was yours and when I found it there was only one mark on it: 're-read', underlined. I will do so and respond on your thread.
As for the current anomalies in physics, is it surprising that they seem to get 'swept under the rug'? The establishment structure is so heavily invested in QED that even 120...
view entire post
Robert,
What a gracious remark you begin with.
I could not recall which essay was yours and when I found it there was only one mark on it: 're-read', underlined. I will do so and respond on your thread.
As for the current anomalies in physics, is it surprising that they seem to get 'swept under the rug'? The establishment structure is so heavily invested in QED that even 120 orders of magnitude change in vacuum energy is simply ignored by most. That should have been earthshaking, calling the whole concept of virtual particles into question.
Although I do not mention it in the current essay, I have written about the 'Axis-of-Evil', which as you know, forms a really big bump under the rug. The silence is deafening.
I do not have any quantitative calculations but hope to generate some. May I offer you a qualitative explanation for the axis. This works much better with a diagram, but I'll try to be succinct.
The model I described (my master equation) has a perfectly symmetric solution G = 1/r if C is suppressed. If one assumes that the gravitational field explodes symmetrically, then the energy density, hence mass density, at the big bang should create a massive outward flow. Each volume element would induce massive gravito-magnetic circulation. But here's the kicker: every outward "ray" of energy is completely surrounded by neighboring rays of energy and the perfect symmetry causes each induced circulation to cancel its neighbor's circulation, completely suppressing all circulation.
At some point, as always, symmetry breaks, and the axis on which it breaks will unleash tremendous energy, establishing a preferred direction, a.k.a., "the Axis-of-Evil".
I won't conjecture in a comment on the peculiarly "earth-centric" aspect (the 'evil' part!).
Since you don't mention him I'll assume you may be unaware of Michael J Longo's study of spiral galaxies. (Google: Longo spiral galaxies) arXiv:1104.2815 and a Physics Letters B 4/14/11 paper. Very interesting. And very compatible with my model.
I thank you again for reading my essay and for your wonderful comment. I look forward to re-reading your essay and commenting on it.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Gene H Barbee wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 21:30 GMT
My post turned into more than I could put in this space. Please read my post below.
attachments:
Post_for_Edwin_Klingman.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Gene,
Thanks for your heartening remarks.
You mention that I did not include values for the C-field. This is correct, although the values are included in the linked references. I will give you a brief summary:
In 2006, when I decided that a new field was likely, I asked myself how strong the field could be without interfering with known atomic and molecular physics and chemistry. I arrived at a value that turned out to be 31 orders of magnitude greater than indicated in Einstein's field equations. Then, within the year, Martin Tajmar reported measurement of the C-field with an experimental result 31 orders of magnitude greater than expected. So for the last seven years I've been using this scale factor. It has produced very interesting results, while at the same time not yielding other results that I expected to find. As mentioned in my essay Kauffmann's work in the East and Pretorius papers caused me to focus on the nonlinear approach I show on page 4. The result is that, rather than a fixed value, the strength of the field appears to vary depending on the driving force. This is a radical change from my previous work and I'm only beginning to pursue quantitative results. I have great hopes for this approach, but, so far, have solved very few quantitative problems. I expect this to change within a reasonably short time.
I've looked at your essay, but of course have not yet worked through all of your numbers. And I'm not sure that I fully understand your model. You ask where your large factor exp (90) comes from. My belief, based on work I have done, is that the nonlinear approach yields very unexpected numbers. Your comment references Kauffmann (reference 15 in my essay). I recommend reviewing this and looking at my reference 16, East and Pretorius, to gain a better idea of the effect of nonlinearity on gravity.
Thanks again for your extensive comment and your kind remarks.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
I would like to call my readers' attention to a remarkable essay by Alexei Grinbaum. To understand fully the following comments, one must read his essay, nevertheless, my comment to him is worth reproducing:
Dear Alexei,
A most interesting essay! If I understand you correctly, you are considering the case of what will remain of a physics theory "if one clears away its human inventors...
view entire post
I would like to call my readers' attention to
a remarkable essay by Alexei Grinbaum. To understand fully the following comments, one must read his essay, nevertheless, my comment to him is worth reproducing:
Dear Alexei,
A most interesting essay! If I understand you correctly, you are considering the case of what will remain of a physics theory "if one clears away its human inventors and users," based on the assumption that our ideas of physical reality are primarily a function of the way our brains are wired. Thus the first thing you throw away are ontological bases for theories. You conclude that only a mathematical basis of theories remains.
This appears to be a Platonic belief that math exists in some extra physical realm. An alternate perspective, developed in my essay, considers that, in the sense of Wheeler's "Participatory Universe", we are immediately connected to the physical universe (i.e., we sense gravity directly), while mathematics is a creation of the organization of our brains. In this case, if brain-based ideas are removed, then only physical reality, but no mathematical "principle" remains. This seems to cover the extreme cases.
A Platonic mathematical universe seems reflected in your statement: "in theoretical physics the axiomatic method must be separated from the Greek attitude that axioms repeat truths about reality." And "the axiomatic method has become a powerful tool for mathematical research."
My approach is based on the fact that I know how to derive math from matter, but I cannot imagine how to derive matter from math, and Occam's razor seems to argue against the separate independent existence of math and matter. Given a set of measurement numbers, an algorithmic procedure based on entropy maximization will produce a feature vector, with no ontological assumptions, and the space of such feature vectors is the typical basis of physical theories. The numbers and their mathematical manipulation, up to and including the derivation of the feature vectors, all are generated by material circuitry. Similarly, the fact that you discuss, that physics is observer independent (in the sense you describe) "only because quantum mechanics uses abstract mathematics..." is also compatible with matter generated math.
You have an interesting discussion that concludes that we do not have the "precise physical constitution" of the observer. This too is compatible with matter-generated-math as there are countless ways to design mathematical circuits, all of which will produce the same numeric outputs. You conclude that "the defining characteristic of the observer" is that "it must have information about some physical system." In my model this information is equivalent to energy transferred from the system to the structure of the observer, and thereby 'registered', becoming information. In other words wholly dependent on the 'it' of the observer structure. The 'bit' is the result that comes into existence only when a threshold is crossed. This is in agreement with your remark that "this information fully or partially describes the state of the system."
So we are both led to the conclusion that "An observer is a system identification algorithm."
I was surprised when our different assumptions converged on this point. You note that the observer can be flesh or silicon. Like you, I treated a robot developing a theory of physics, based on measurement, for the same purpose of eliminating human preconceptions. It is fascinating that you appear to start with the reality of a mathematical world and the reality of information, while I deny both, and we reach an important common conclusion. This became much clearer with the development of your schema based on where one cuts the loop.
You say "Each way of cutting the loop fixes one part of the loop in the position of derived concepts [...] while the other part becomes a given, ..."
You have done a superb job in developing this formalism. Congratulations!
You say, "it is mandatory to cut the loop, which makes it impossible to close within one theory the gap between the observer and the observed." This might also be considered the inherent boundary between the subjective and the objective. But where does one cut the loop? The system cannot choose, only the observer can choose. Based upon awareness that metric overlays on reality are mental constructs, and based on subjective awareness of the reality of gravity, I choose to interpret physics as real and information as a derived concept. I congratulate you again on having developed the schema and I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I enjoyed yours.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 19:01 GMT
Because I have slightly misrepresented Alexei's position, I am including his response and my further response:
Alexei Grinbaum replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 07:10 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,
Thank you for your comments. There is no claim in my essay about Platonism. Indeed I am not choosing between object realism, property realism, structural realism or Platonic idealism, i.e. the...
view entire post
Because I have slightly misrepresented Alexei's position, I am including his response and my further response:
Alexei Grinbaum replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 07:10 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,
Thank you for your comments. There is no claim in my essay about Platonism. Indeed I am not choosing between object realism, property realism, structural realism or Platonic idealism, i.e. the realism of mathematical entities (which is close to structural realism in some of its forms). I believe that science does not warrant claims about "reality", only about what is posited and what can be derived within a physical theory. There exists no proof of any predicate in the form "X is real", while one can show the opposite: "X cannot be held as fundamental".
As for the question about where one cuts the loop, there is no one answer to that. The point of the loop view is that there can be many cuts, each of which leads to a different sort of theory. No one loop cut is better than the other: the job they are doing is different in every case. I understand that you prefer to posit something you call "matter" and to derive information. This is perfectly fine; but a different loop cut is equally possible.
Is the loop cut the same as the cut between the objective and the subjective? I don't think so. In the Husserlian debate, of course, phenomenology is central, but my loop view is purely epistemological, i.e. it involves the ensemble of theories of (scientific) knowledge. All predicates are formulated in the third person and there are no first-person claims. Still, as you noticed, I support the attempts to analyze the connection between physical theory and observer-dependent point of view - in a scientific way. We lack mathematics for that, but I am hopeful that such mathematics will be found.
Best wishes, Alexei Grinbaum
Dear Alexei,
Thank you for clarifying your position. It is more neutral than I assumed. I believe you have achieved a remarkable accomplishment, illuminating the essential arbitrariness of what is given and what is derived, when one is stuck only with logic. Fortunately I'm not stuck only with logic but possess awareness, experience, sensations, and knowledge. I can understand your goal, and find absolutely no fault with it. In fact I strongly approve it. But I have a different goal, which has been (for over half a century) to understand reality (to the extent possible). From my perspective, your development satisfies each of our separate goals.
I fully understand that different loop cuts are possible, but I must cut the loop in the place it makes sense, based on my life as I have lived it. Others, it is clear, will make different sense out of it. You rightly proclaim that it is not (currently) amenable to a scientifically justifiable choice. From my perspective we will not find mathematics capable of making the choice, and not just because of Godel, but because math is an abstraction, unless one is a Platonist, which, as you point out, is not claimed or supported by your essay.
From the perspective of the institution of science, which is inherently third-party, you show a scheme which does not fix an order of precedence. From my perspective, which is inherently first party, it is obvious what the precedence is. A win-win situation!
Thank you again for your delightful essay. It should place highly in this contest.
Best regards, Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Gene H Barbee wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 07:04 GMT
Again my post is a bit lengthy so it is below.
attachments:
Second_Post_to_Edwin.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 21:33 GMT
Gene,
I'm slightly confused by your first table. Your label says Compton wavelength, but you show the Planck length. You say "they picked a combination of Compton mass and Planck energy that gave p/hc=1." Who is they? Also, by doing the calculations I see that E/C uses C for speed of light, while hc uses c for speed of light. It's time-consuming to have to check that you mean the same thing by C and c, and at the moment I don't have time to go through all the numbers in your essay to check everything.
In short, the above page is too condensed for me to fully follow your arguments. It's not clear to me where the exp(90) comes from [which, I believe, is what you're asking me.] I will try to review your paper again, but at the moment I'm still catching up on the latest submissions, (some of which are very good.)
I wish I could see the answer to your problem, but at the moment I don't.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 02:02 GMT
This bold insightful essay has much in common with my own view on the current state of quantum theory. I especially applaud the comments on Bell's errant role in the current fiasco re nonlocality, and hope that my own contribution will be seen to rightly support the emergent view re Bell's theorem so clearly and forcefully presented here.
[NB: My critique of Bell in no way diminishes my...
view entire post
This bold insightful essay has much in common with my own view on the current state of quantum theory. I especially applaud the comments on Bell's errant role in the current fiasco re nonlocality, and hope that
my own contribution will be seen to rightly support the emergent view re Bell's theorem so clearly and forcefully presented here.
[NB: My critique of Bell in no way diminishes my regard for his contribution to the search that so many of us now continue; the following being particularly relevant here:
"Now nobody knows just where the boundary between the classical and quantum domain is situated. ... A possibility is that we find exactly where the boundary lies. More plausible to me is that we will find that there is no boundary. It is hard for me to envisage intelligible discourse about a world with no classical part - no base of given events, be they only mental events in a single consciousness, to be correlated. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine that the classical domain could be extended to cover the whole. The wave functions would prove to be a provisional or incomplete description of the quantum-mechanical part, of which an objective account would become possible. It is this possibility, of a homogeneous account of the world, which is for me the chief motivation of the study of the so-called 'hidden variable' possibility," Bell (2004:29-30).]
So, given my preference for critical discussions of my own contributions, I want to critically address what is, for me, an unnecessarily off-putting by-product of the essay's focus on an important "hidden variable." That is: Its concluding emphasis on the word "AWARE" across (to my mind) far too many contexts!
IMO that word has no place here, EXCEPT by way of psycho-physical analogy: FOR it is too closely rooted in and associated with the psycho-physical; and it is too far removed from basic foundational issues.
However, NB, I have no problem with the use of psycho-physical analogies as we work to unite the BIG-and-the-small ...
... thus, by way of analogy, AWARENESS certainly provides the foundation for much of modern psychology and consciousness-theory; exemplified via this simple mnemonic that might help us here: ABC,
Awareness -> Behaviour -> Consequence. (1)
So, seeing no need for "taste" or "smell" in foundational matters, I certainly see no need for a "psycho-sixth-sense" -- as it were -- even as a foundation for our consciousness at this early stage: ALL these can emerge later! But I do see a need for the-issue-at-hand, the needed variable. Thus, favouring as I do the view that "maths is the best logic," let's represent the sought-for foundational variable by what I interpret it to be: R = Response.
For analogously helpful (1) above can then be represented schematically, meaningfully AND physically by:
response -> Response -> RESPONSE = Stimulus-Response theory; (2)
with the following one-real-field (F) connection:
response = F's response R
i to the stimulus of its Source S
i. (3)
Response = F's response R
o to the stimuli of all other Sources S
o. (4)
RESPONSE = F's total response R to the Universe of S. (5)
PS-1: Respectively: self-awareness; Other-awareness; TOTAL awareness! I can see this working for me. (And you, dear Reader?)
PS-2: IMO, the essay would be improved by directly linking "IN-formation" to correlations and to its root "TO INFORM;" for, in the end it seems to me, the value of information is related to its degree of correlation with facts.
Delighted to learn, via FQXi and this essay, of another highly-qualified non-conformist taking a fresh look at foundations, I look forward to further mathematico-logical developments, especially of the essay's equation (1).
Gordon Watson
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 05:46 GMT
Gordon,
Thanks for the positive comments on my essay. Let me spend my time addressing the critical comments.
You and I are both convinced that Bell's inequality is the root of what you label the 'fiasco of non-locality'. In particular you are focused on showing mistakes in Bell's logic. Toward that end, the focus on awareness, which you view as psycho-physical, and more properly...
view entire post
Gordon,
Thanks for the positive comments on my essay. Let me spend my time addressing the critical comments.
You and I are both convinced that Bell's inequality is the root of what you label the 'fiasco of non-locality'. In particular you are focused on showing mistakes in Bell's logic. Toward that end, the focus on awareness, which you view as psycho-physical, and more properly in the realm of psychology, is a distraction; even one that leaves a bad taste in some physicists' mouth.
I appreciate your position, and, as far as a practical attack on Bellian non-locality, agree with you. You wish to focus all firepower on the problem, without getting sidetracked.
This is been your focus and goal since at least 1989. My long-term goals have been different. Since the mid-60s I've been focused on consciousness in an attempt to understand awareness. It was absolutely clear to me that the range of my awareness (and presumably others) did not arise from 'putting Lego blocks in the right order'. I cannot justify that position in a brief comment, but it is my key pursuit in life. After 40 years of this effort I arrived, as described elsewhere, at the realization that consciousness is a field and guessed at the equation relating this field to the physical world. To my initial amazement it turned out to have the form as the gravitomagnetic field equation, and things began falling into place nicely and have continued to fall into place for the last seven years.
As there are many unsuspected physical effects of this field at the particle level, I have tended to focus at that level. As a result I believe I will be able to derive particle masses from first principles, an impossibility in the Standard Model. And also explain key anomalies that are so far unexplained. So (with the exception of one other essay) I tend to suppress consciousness aspects and work on physical calculations and predictions. But if there was ever an occasion to bring out the consciousness aspects of the field, this "It-from-Bit" contest is the occasion. The issues here are inseparable from Wheeler's "Participatory Universe" -- and his participatory universe has no meaning without consciousness.
Nor does "information, meaning, knowledge, interpretation, context, etc." have any meaning without consciousness.
A number physicists appreciate this and are supportive.
Some physicists feel this issue is best left to psychologists and neuro-anatomists. Your comments seem to place you in this group. Your wording, "taste", "smell", and "psycho-sixth-sense" tell me that not only have you failed to understand my issues, but that we are so far apart on this that no immediate communications on these issues is likely to be fruitful. I found that even those for whom consciousness (in physics) is a major issue typically require a period of "converging vocabularies" before much communication occurs, simply because the standard terminology is fuzzy and precise definitions almost non-existent. For those who view consciousness as irrelevant to physics, no real communication is possible.
Not as a defense, but merely as context: there are few great physicists in quantum theory who have not dealt in one way or another with consciousness and QM; Bohr, Einstein, Pauli, Bohm come immediately to mind. Bell, while admitting "a degree of embarrassment at consciousness being dragged into physics" [page 27 'Unspeakable'] nevertheless drags it in!
To conclude, I fully understand, Gordon, why, finding a potential strong supporter for your attack on Bell's logic, you are mildly dismayed to find that he stoops to what you consider 'psychobabble'.
This of course will have no bearing on my support for your logic. After one reading I am favorably impressed. It will require more than one reading to comprehend your logic. I plan to read it and reread it. If your logic convinces me I will be a very strong supporter, since we both agree that Bell's "non-locality" is proving disastrous for physics.
This is completely independent of whether or not you come to realize the part that awareness must play in understanding information in physics. Or even whether you believe consciousness comes from putting Lego blocks together in the correct order.
Thanks for a sincere critique. That's the best kind.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 08:13 GMT
Edwin; one (maybe both) of us is communicating badly. From reading another of your essays I got the drift of your admirable focus on consciousness -- BEFORE I replied. SO that was in no way my concern; especially as I've studied many writings on the subject by the founders, Pauli in particular coming to mind
The essence of my concern -- please study it carefully -- was expressed...
view entire post
Edwin; one (maybe both) of us is communicating badly. From reading another of your essays I got the drift of your admirable focus on consciousness -- BEFORE I replied. SO that was in no way my concern; especially as I've studied many writings on the subject by the founders, Pauli in particular coming to mind
The essence of my concern -- please study it carefully -- was expressed thus:
"So, seeing no need for "taste" or "smell" in foundational matters, I certainly see no need for a "psycho-sixth-sense" -- as it were -- even as a foundation for our consciousness at this early stage: ALL these can emerge later!"
That is:
(i) It is my view that consciousness is emergent and not therefore foundational.
(ii) Given the potential physics associated with your ONE REAL FIELD, it seemed to me that consciousness would emerge nicely -- nicely linked to the Responsiveness of that field as you developed your quantitative calculations, etc.
(iii) I was surprised that AWARENESS should be so frequently stressed so early -- "at this early stage" of development -- in the closing phase of this essay. (Over 30 times, I'd guess?)
(iv) At NO stage did I have psychobabble in mind -- so I doubt it is to be found anywhere in my response!
(v) Thus, Edwin, with great respect, this next says too much; yet not enough!
"To conclude, I fully understand, Gordon, why, finding a potential strong supporter for your attack on Bell's logic, you are mildly dismayed to find that he stoops to what you consider 'psychobabble'."
For my attack on Bell is only a means to getting at the fact that the quantum is classical!
AND I have NO dismay whatsoever at your position on anything; quite the contrary!
I appreciate you extended comments above re consciousness, and find no concerns therein: EXCEPT where you misplace me in sets to which I DO NOT BELONG!
SO, please: Dismissing any notion of psychobabble, please reconsider my response in this extended context.
Looking forward to your (hopefully amended) response, with best regards; Gordon
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 04:50 GMT
Gordon,
Amended response forthwith. Best to focus on a common position, which is that quantum is classical, since that is our shared focus.
'Psychobabble' was an overreaction to 'psycho-sixth-sense' which is just as inappropriate from my perspective. As I noted, communication is almost impossible before the vocabulary is nailed down. 'Psycho' to me has to do with the psychology, which has to do with thinking, which is based on logical (physical) circuitry in the brain. This is clearly emergent. Awareness is awareness. It is (in my considered opinion) fundamental and could never emerge from the arrangement of physical entities. It is as fundamental as the fact that gravity pulls on you.
But, as I mentioned at the end of my essay, one can delete awareness from the field, the physics still holds. But then one must account for awareness, and no one can do this. And, as I noted, this "It-from-Bit" contest is the perfect venue to discuss awareness because blah blah blah...
Since we don't share a common vocabulary here, but we do (or should) share one re Bell, let's focus on our shared goal of restoring reality to physics.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Edwin
Please help guide : What is name the Lee Smolin’s new book ? and what write about matters? - many thank you.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 01:57 GMT
Dear Hoang cao Hai,
Smolin's book is the second reference at the end of my essay:
L Smolin, 2013 "Time Reborn", Spin Networks Ltd ISBN 9780547511726
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 20:44 GMT
A note to readers of my essay: I highly recommend Mark Feeley's essay --
Without Cause
Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Things like ''ad hoc 'creation' and 'annihilation' operators'', ''virtual particles'', ''Bell nonlocality'' and ''awareness'' look quite different when we discard causality -in which case we can no longer conceive of the 'speed' of light as the velocity light moves at but have to interpret c as a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely.
If real particles...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
Things like ''ad hoc 'creation' and 'annihilation' operators'', ''virtual particles'', ''Bell nonlocality'' and ''awareness'' look quite different when we discard causality -in which case we can no longer conceive of the 'speed' of light as the velocity light moves at but have to interpret c as a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely.
If real particles are virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance (Uncertainty Principle (UP): the smaller their distance, the higher the frequency they exchange energy at, pop up and disappear to pop up again, the higher their rest energy is), then they create and un-create each other over and over again. As the energy sign of a particle alternates, it is a wave phenomenon. If the energy, the rest frequency of a particle is the superposition of all frequencies it exchanges energy at with all particles within its interaction horizon, a frequency which depends on their mass, distance and motion, then the particle in its properties carries all relevant information about its entire universe, information which is refreshed in every cycle of its oscillation, so we might perhaps say that it at all times, in real time is 'aware' of what happens within its entire universe, however primitive that awareness is.
We can distinguish between two kinds of interactions: the conspicuous kind in which the energy and motion of particles changes, and the energy exchange by means of which particles express and preserve their, each other's properties, interactions which, preserving the status quo, aren't observable so aren't thought to exist, in fact can be identified as the long sought for ''hidden variables'', which of course only works if their communication is instantaneous. As a Big Bang Universe (BBU) lives in a time realm not of its own making so it is the same cosmic time everywhere, here it does take a photon time to travel. In contrast, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) does not live in a time realm not of its own making but contains and produces all time within, so here clocks must be observed to run slower as they are more distant even when at rest relative to the observer. As a result in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere, so here a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all (see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1328). That we cannot experimentally determine whether c must be conceived of as a (finite) velocity or as a property of spacetime, combined with the fact that an instantaneous transmission over any spacetime distance would make the riddles of quantum mechanics like entanglement, the EPR paradox and the double-slit experiment self-evident, should at least give pause for thought.
Wheeler's participatory universe obviously doesn't require human participation to make the universe exist as his existence then would causally precede the universe. Since in a SCU particles create each other so particles, their properties are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, their energy exchange, it is a participatory universe indeed. However, while in a SCU particles would vanish when we could cut of their energy exchange, in a Big Bang Universe (BBU) particles are assumed to keep existing even when they would be isolated from interactions since here their properties are privately owned quantities, only the cause of interactions so are unchangeable, they cannot be accused of having any form of awareness. The problem of a BBU is that it violates the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing, must add to nothing, unlike a SCU which does obey this very most fundamental law of physics. Big bang cosmology conceives of the universe as an ordinary object we can imagine to observe from the outside, which has particular properties as a whole and evolves in time, i.e., lives in a time realm not of its own making. Since a SCU obeys the law which says that everything inside of it, including space and time must add to nil, it is that unique, paradoxical 'thing' which has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without but only exists as seen from within, here it doesn't make any sense to ask how old or large it is, how much energy it contains or what its entropy is, questions which anyway require that the meter, second, gram and joule are defined even outside the universe. As in a BBU particles only are the cause of forces, here one has to assume the existence of virtual photons and gravitons to transmit forces between real particles, so must move, like pin-balls in a pinball machine, at a finite velocity. Though the emission and absorption of virtual particles by real ones is supposed to be random so the energy of real particles fluctuate randomly, they nevertheless obey the UP according to which a deviation in the energy of a particle may last shorter as the deviation is greater, begging the question how its neighbors can know when to supply the particle in a timely fashion with energy so it can obey the UP. This is obvious in a SCU since here the particle in every cycle exchanges all of its energy: in fact, the UP is just another formulation of the Planck relation E = h v, with h the Planck constant and v the frequency the particle oscillates at.
Continued in the next post.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 03:15 GMT
As to ''the origin of the universe'', as argued, unlike a BBU, the real universe we live in has no beginning as a whole, no cause, no origin as it does not exist as 'seen' from without: in a SCU every particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its own interaction horizon, so is the alpha and omega of its own universe. A SCU obeys the perfect cosmological principle: here particles start...
view entire post
As to ''the origin of the universe'', as argued, unlike a BBU, the real universe we live in has no beginning as a whole, no cause, no origin as it does not exist as 'seen' from without: in a SCU every particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its own interaction horizon, so is the alpha and omega of its own universe. A SCU obeys the perfect cosmological principle: here particles start to exist to each other, create one another as they start to exchange energy, start to evolve to higher energies, as they start to contract, which they will due to gravity which, as I argued in my 2013 essay, favors events which increase their mass above a decrease, powering time as they do. If according to the UP a particle with an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime, then we can say that it always has existed: the smaller its energy, the less definite its energy, its properties are, the more it has a virtual character, the less its presence differs from its nonexistence.
As to ''gravity may not fit into quantum mechanics'', in my study (which is a bit of a mess, see website) I have defined the mass of a particle as being greater as its position is less indefinite, agreeing both with the uncertainty principle which is at the heart of quantum mechanics, and, as the (in)definiteness in its position must be specified relative to an observing particle, also is a relativistic definition. The greater the mass of a particle is, the stronger the forces it exerts and feels from all directions, the more exactly equal they are, the smaller the area is where they are more precisely equal, the smaller the area it can be found in, the less indefinite its position is. Conversely, the smaller its mass is, the less definite its position is, the less it matters physically whether it exists or not, where it is when. If the (rest) energy of a real (massive) particle, its rate of change varies within every cycle, from an infinitesimal value to some non-zero magnitude, then according to this mass definition, the indefiniteness in its position similarly varies within every cycle and hence its momentum.
Your lamentation that ''we don't have access to reality'' presupposes that there exists such a thing: as I argued in my 2012 essay, there is no objectively observable reality at the origin of our observation, with emphasis of ''objectively'' since in our self-creating universe, the building blocks of reality, its particles are made out of each other. The fallacy of classical mechanics, of big bang cosmology and general relativity is that they assume that there exists an absolute reality, something we could objectively observe from outside the universe if we could step outside of it, if we could look over God's shoulders at His creation, so these theories are infected, contaminated with religious suppositions we aren't even aware of.
Regards, Anton
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Hi Anton,
As I noted in my comment on your blog, we agree on a number of points, and I'm confused on different points. I still fail to see that a BBU exists "inside" anything any more than an SCU does. In fact I see the BBU as a self-creating entity, and, I see it as conserving momentum and energy. So either we have different definitions or I am missing some fine point.
I also...
view entire post
Hi Anton,
As I noted in my comment on your blog, we agree on a number of points, and I'm confused on different points. I still fail to see that a BBU exists "inside" anything any more than an SCU does. In fact I see the BBU as a self-creating entity, and, I see it as conserving momentum and energy. So either we have different definitions or I am missing some fine point.
I also find it reasonable, in fact preferable, to interpret c is a property of the material that fills, and essentially defines, space-time.
Your description of virtual particles is excellent. In fact, as I noted in my essay, data fitting should be used to discriminate between theories. As most of QED is based on virtual particles, then that means my theory would have to fit the data as well as or better than the virtual particles to be taken seriously (unless it had other extreme advantages...).
I'm certain that I do not understand some of your points, for example that "in an SCU it is not the same time everywhere."
You mentioned that in a BBU particles keep existing even when isolated from interactions ... and so can't have awareness. But in my view the particles are stable concentrations of the field, which has the awareness, and so are unseparated from this (infinitesimal level of) awareness.
Again, you mentioned that "everything is inside of an SCU" while I see a BBU the same way. I do not believe in a multiverse where multiple BBU's exist. Perhaps that is what you attribute to me that would constitute the difference in BBU and SCU. In that sense the "eternal inflation" of the multiverse picture would seem to describe a (system of) self-creating universe(s). In any case, there is some distinction here that I am missing which keeps me from understanding the fine points of your argument.
You clearly have a theory with details worked out that fit together in your mind, and I do also. There's enough confusion between us that may be partly based in terminology and partly based on incompatibility of ideas. That leads to a situation where "data fitting" comes to the forefront, and for this reason I'm focusing my efforts on quantitative results as my qualitative aspects seem to work well. From what I can determine your qualitative aspects work well also.
You misconstrued "we don't have access to reality". I am quoting others. I do believe there is a reality, and I listed number of ways in which I do have direct access to it in my closing paragraph. But we again are out of sync in terms of definition, as I do not see reality as something we could step outside of.
I will have to give more thought to your comments and your essay to try to discern where this confusion arises, aside from different definitions.
Thank you for the detailed comparison of our ideas and the effort you put into the comments.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Anton Biermans replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 03:35 GMT
Hi Edwin,
A Big Bang Universe (BBU) is not a self-creating entity. This is extremely hard to explain and comprehend, yet crucial if we are to comprehend quantum mechanics (which to me seems a prerequisite to develop quantum gravity), to understand our universe. Though like you ''I do not see reality as something we could step outside of'', we actually do so in Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) as...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
A Big Bang Universe (BBU) is not a self-creating entity. This is extremely hard to explain and comprehend, yet crucial if we are to comprehend quantum mechanics (which to me seems a prerequisite to develop quantum gravity), to understand our universe. Though like you ''I do not see reality as something we could step outside of'', we actually do so in Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) as the entire 'theory' is drafted from an imaginary observation post outside of it. The psychological barrier we have to overcome seems to be that even the hard core atheists among us, tend to think about ourselves as having an absolute existence, transcending the universe, as if there's Someone outside of it with respect to which we exist, Who is witness to our existence, a habit from times when we believed to be at the center of God's attention, the idea which caused Galilei so much trouble when he questioned it.
If there would be only a single charged particle in the entire universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. Since it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions: the 'its' indeed are as much the cause as the effect of the (exchange of) bits so you cannot have one without the other.
Similarly, in the seemingly innocent assumption that we can regard the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties as a whole, which change IN time, we actually assume there's something outside of it it interacts with, owes its properties to, and, implicitly, that it has been created by something outside of it. This is why I say that a BBU lives in a time (and space) realm not of its own making, that it is not a self-creating (or self-contained) entity. BBC, in looking at the universe like we may imagine God to look at His creation, in fact paints a religious picture of the universe. Evidently, this attitude can be justified only if and when the inside objects only are the cause of interactions, not when we have to concede that particles they are built out of, ultimately must be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions. Indeed, the fact that the meter, second, gram and joule are not defined outside the universe already takes any significance out of any statement about the universe BBC cares to make. If it does not make any sense to speak about its properties as 'seen' from without, then we also cannot speak about its properties, as a whole, as seen from within. This is what I mean when I say that, unlike a BBU, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) does not live in a time realm not of its own making. While a BBU is thought to be quite homogenous and isotropic, about the same everywhere (but not at all times: a BBC obeys the Cosmological Principle (CP)), as if it 'contains' a single, unique reality, in a SCU where we can only make statements from within, any observer, no matter when he lives and where he looks from, sees objects in all possible phases of their evolution, and, unlike in a BBU, not as they were in ''the'' past. Though a SCU obeys the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP), it shouldn't be confused with Hoyle's Steady State Universe as this suffers the same conceptual flaw as a BBU, as it is thought about from an imaginary observation post outside of it. Indeed, if to avoid having an outside Creator, we must discard causality, and hence the concept of cosmic time, then we can no longer determine what in an absolute sense precedes what and say that the emission of a photon by A causally precedes its absorption by B. In a SCU an observer doesn't see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past but as it is at present to him.
In the 'virtual particle' description in my previous post I proposed that the energy a particle has according to a nearby observer contains contributions from all particles within its interaction horizon. While in a BBU it is the same cosmic time everywhere (ignoring the effect of gravitational fields on clock paces) so a photon has to travel at finite velocity so its contribution to the energy of the observed particle originate in a distant past, in a SCU they contribute in real time to its energy, no matter their spacetime distance to the particle. If you agree that particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, exchange energy (so they in some sense can be said to exist 'out of each other') and have no physical reality to an observer who doesn't physically interact with them, who finds himself outside their interaction horizon, their universe, then in this sense to him everything inside of it cancels, is unobservable so he cannot make any statement about that universe. So my objection to BBC isn't just that as we cannot step outside of it to actually observe what happens inside of it, we cannot say anything about it; it is because in a universe which obeys the law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, everything inside of it must cancel so there's nothing 'left' for an imaginary outside observer to observe, unlike a BBU where the observer would find things to look at.
To be continued in the next post
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anton Biermans replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 03:37 GMT
Though at macroscopic scale a property of an object indeed is what the dictionary says it is, something it privately owns, only the cause of its interactions, independent from interactions, here the observer doesn't affect the observed in a perceptible manner. If, as classical mechanics, big bang cosmology and general relativity assumes that the properties of objects are eternally unchangeable,...
view entire post
Though at macroscopic scale a property of an object indeed is what the dictionary says it is, something it privately owns, only the cause of its interactions, independent from interactions, here the observer doesn't affect the observed in a perceptible manner. If, as classical mechanics, big bang cosmology and general relativity assumes that the properties of objects are eternally unchangeable, they obviously can, in principle, be observed without being affected by the observation, so in this, outdated, view, there indeed exists an objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations: as Einstein said: ''We all, more or less in the same way, say that a rose is red, smells like perfume, and feels like velvet. In other words, there is an objective reality which is conceived by the senses, and behind this objective reality are natural laws which are the privilege of the scientist to discover.'' However, things are entirely different at quantum level: if particles are both cause and effect of their interactions so the particles of the rose and those of the observer contribute to each other's energy, each other's properties, then he cannot observe the rose as it is since without his own existence it wouldn't be the exact same rose. Though as a rose is a macroscopic object, the effect of the observer on the rose is negligible, at quantum level an observing particle does affect the observed particle to the extent they are 'made out of each other', exchange energy. Einstein continues: ''Nature doesn't know chance, it operates on mathematical principles. As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world.'' Though despite this statement, he said that he didn't believe in God, in insisting on causality, on determinism (which made him reject quantum mechanics), he actually did, the result of which is that general relativity in its adaptation to big bang cosmology became corrupted.
I am well aware that what I propose constitutes a completely different paradigm so cannot be understood very well in the terms of the present one: ''To adopt a new theory or paradigm means to accept a completely novel conceptual scheme that has so little in common with that of the older; now rejected, theory that the two theories are "incommensurable," for no objective yardstick exists that makes it possible to compare them. Furthermore, as the meaning of every scientific term in a given theory depends upon the theoretical context in which it occurs, even the individual scientific terms of the new theory are incommensurable with the terms of the old one, despite the fact that the same terminology is often retained.'' (''Concepts of Mass in Physics and Philosophy'' M. Jammer, p 57)
Regards, Anton
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Mark Feeley wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 16:19 GMT
Edwin, very nice essay. I think we are in solid agreement on the approach to physics – one grounded in the idea that there is something real, an “It”, from which we derive information, “Bit”.
You do a good job of exploring why we believe a theory is good. The graphic of the n-parameter elephant, combined with the Jaynes quote in your conclusion “the proper question is not “How...
view entire post
Edwin, very nice essay. I think we are in solid agreement on the approach to physics – one grounded in the idea that there is something real, an “It”, from which we derive information, “Bit”.
You do a good job of exploring why we believe a theory is good. The graphic of the n-parameter elephant, combined with the Jaynes quote in your conclusion “the proper question is not “How well do data D support hypothesis?” [but] “Are there alternatives which data D would support relative to H, and how much support is possible?” puts its all together. Just because one hypothesis yields a nice elephant does not mean it is correct, and we always need to explore other hypotheses which might draw better elephants.
In my essay, I put forward an argument for an interpretation of quantum theory which associates wavefunctions with experiments, not things. By rejecting assertions that QM is a theory of things, thus is not a physical theory, we are free to pursue theories that are physical. We can now explore what sort of physical things and physical theories might then explain the predictions made by the predictions of QM – other hypotheses which might fit the data. After reading your essay, and re-reading your essay of last time, I understand that you seek a locally realistic theory underlying QM, as I do.
Your proposal is that we begin with a single field (“But rather than postulate hundreds of fields as Susskind does for his Multiverse, we can assume that only one real field existed initially.”) and I agree this is an excellent beginning. I am a little unsure whether you a proposing that we now have multiple fields, and I am a little unsure where particles fit in your scheme. Here we may diverge somewhat, as I would suggest exploring the hypothesis that the one real field is what existed initially and is still all there is, thus no particles (in the sense of Democritus or Newton) and no other fields (except perhaps as components of one field). Certainly, as you argue in your last essay on the nature of the wavefunction, we must also distinguish between the real field and our probabilistic estimates of what we might expect should we perform experiments on the real field.
You took some pains to distinguish between the field and geometry in your essay, but I think that if you adopt the idea that there is only one real field, then the distinction between the field and geometry is not problematic: the geometry and the field are equivalent. As you quote from MTW, “any physical theory originally written in a special coordinates system can be recast in geometric, coordinate free language.” We encounter many more problems if we try to describe geometry as multiple fields and particles.
I think your final discussion regarding awareness and the consciousness field is daring, in that it may venture a little beyond the conventional realm of physics, but you argue very logically and come to a sound conclusion. You make a sensible assertion that, for example, there is a sense in which we can say gravity is “aware” and proceed very carefully from there. If you assume there is only one real field the argument is even simpler: if there is only one field, then you (or anyone else) are a manifestation of that field, and combined with the apparent evidence that you are aware, you are quite logically led to a conclusion that the field is in some way aware. As I said, this is logical but also daring.
Nice job on the essay. Thanks for recommending that others read mine. I think that it fits very nicely with yours, and discussing how ideas can be fit together - arranging the jigsaw puzzle of ideas - is the most valuable part of this contest.
Regards, Mark
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Mark,
Thanks for reading my essays and commenting. Just as I managed to pick out the key point of your essay, that "an observable is a name for a type of experiment, not a property of some physical thing", you have discerned the key point that data fitting should discriminate between theories.
We both prefer to start with a real field. In my essay the field can produce a self-interacting vortex which shrinks to a finite soliton-like toroidal particle, which is simply a very stable "concentration of field". So it is still field, but probably is more localized than your view of the field, although this local 'particle' has sufficient mass density to produce a secondary disturbance or circulation that corresponds to de Broglie's 'pilot wave' (but not an exact correspondence). Since the local energy is stable, particles endure, but sufficiently high-energy collisions produce new vortices which yield particle jets spitting out new particles. The process is too complex for a comment, but I hope you get the idea. The process also leads to integral charge, including quark charges, and quark confinement also falls out of the single field.
I am certainly not opposed to geometry, but was addressing what I see as a problematic view: that physics is "nothing but" geometry. That seems to abstract away physical reality, replacing it with math.
I am extremely pleased that you see the logic in my hypothesis. It is logical and seems to match my experience, so I put it forth at the risk all 'daring ideas' run. As I am independent and cannot be fired, I can afford to pursue probable truth.
Mark you have a real ability to cut through the fog. I hope you continue to produce works the quality of your current essay!
With my best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Mark Feeley replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
Edwin, make no mistake, I meant "logical and daring" as a high compliment. Logical is fairly easy, and daring is even easier, but it is often very hard to combine them. Keep it up. Mark
report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 07:41 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Mean while, please, go through my essay and post your comments.
Regards and good luck in the contest.
Sreenath BN.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 00:31 GMT
Eckhard Blumschein, on his thread, asked me questions that are relevant here, so I repeat portions of my answer below. I made the decision to write an extremely high level overview of my theory in 9 pages, guaranteeing that those unfamiliar with it will find it confusing, or at least incomplete. The list of references are intended to "fill in the holes". But of course many will not have time or...
view entire post
Eckhard Blumschein, on his thread, asked me questions that are relevant here, so I repeat portions of my answer below. I made the decision to write an extremely high level overview of my theory in 9 pages, guaranteeing that those unfamiliar with it will find it confusing, or at least incomplete. The list of references are intended to "fill in the holes". But of course many will not have time or interest to explore these. I am, in effect, drawing a high level map of my theory and staking a few claims.
You ask how gravity relates to information. My theory of gravity produces particles, the particles create structures, and local energy transfers cross thresholds, restructuring or "in-form"-ing the structure, and creating and storing information. There exists a long chain of details stretching from the gravity field to the information stored in the local structure. I merely sketch the chain.
The scenes from the Chinese tapestries simply illustrate that humans have always been presented with contradictory information since antiquity. The contradictory information referred to here is "it from bit" versus "bit from it". An 'artistic' illustration, nothing more.
I do agree with most of Schlafly's essay, but I think the best essay in the contest currently is Mark Feeley's.
My master equation for self-evolution of the universe yields solutions G = 1/r, C = 1/t. And it leads to a Newton-like equation suggesting G = gravity. If my G is multiplied by c-squared, it assumes the dimensions of acceleration, as required for Newtons gravity. The C solution already has the dimension (1/t) of Maxwell's and Einstein's gravito-magnetic field (the gravitational analog of the magnetic field).
So, from the simplest and most universal equation I can imagine, I obtain solutions that are easily interpreted as the two aspects of gravity, just as E and B are two aspects of the electromagnetic field. The G field is radial and relates to local mass, whereas the C field is induced by mass density in motion, i.e., momentum density. Therefore the picture relates to moving mass such as relativistic particles, as the problems I am interested in are dominated by C so I ignore G for simplicity.
As for your astute question about the possibility that my asymmetric time can be considered 'now', that is how I interpret it, however the inverse time refers to local 'frequency' associated with the de Broglie-like wave function induced by particle momentum.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 02:16 GMT
Dear
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.
So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...
view entire post
Dear
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.
So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.
Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/
Pdf download:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf
Part of abstract:
- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .
Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .
A
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .
B.
Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……
C
Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.
2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.
3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.
4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?
D
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
It from bit - where are bit come from?
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.
Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..
E
Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.
I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 18:24 GMT
Hello Ed,
I greatly enjoyed reading your paper. It was well-reasoned and you make a great case for your main point. I find a lot to agree with, but as you know I find the Platonic view appealing. Why can't we all just get along?
It is my opinion that your main point is well supported by the logic and evidence you cite, and that your Plato bashing is a side trip - wholly unnecessary to your point or its establishment. So I'll treat that separately later, once my own essay has posted.
All in all, yours is an excellent paper. I got mine in early on the final day, so I imagine it will appear by Tuesday or Wednesday, but that my paper is one of many in a queue.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 19:00 GMT
On Platonism,
It's interesting Ed; I think our stance on the archetypal aspect of Math has a lot to say about the way we got to our present view. What kept me in the Physics game for many years was my investigation of the Mandelbrot Set and how the progression of form at the periphery relates to Cosmology.
So I've spent a lot of time wondering about why a purely mathematical object might influence or shape the evolution of the Cosmos - because I already had the absolute conviction that such a connection exists. I was scheduled to give a talk on this at FFP12, but never made it to Udine - and it has sat on my shelf.
But I am not ready to totally give up on the MUH or other types of mathematical Platonism, as that is what brought me to the table, or is the horse I rode in on. Who knows? I might need a way to get home. And I'll say more when my essay posts. In the meanwhile; I think I see a way our ideas can coexist.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 06:17 GMT
Jonathan,
I'm glad that you enjoyed the paper, and feel bad that you think I bashed Plato too hard. I have another friend who likes the physical aspects of my theory but wishes I had left out any mention of 'awareness'. He feels like you that it is "wholly unnecessary to your point or its establishment".
Of course I point out that one can omit the 'awareness' aspect and the physics still holds. But then one must explain awareness, which no one has done (satisfactorily). You are probably correct that I could omit any mention of Plato and the physics of my model would still hold. But the essay is not just about my model of physics, but about the main question of whether physical reality is fundamental, and it seems to me that if one believes that math lives, and particularly in Tegmark's MUH, then one can believe somehow that 'information' is real, and 'It from Bit' is possible, which I decidedly do not. So at the very least my whole argument is weakened, and much of the rational for assuming only 'ONE' field disappears. If there are TWO fundamentals there may as well be Susskind's hundreds of fields.
So I'm not so sure that it is wholly unnecessary to my point. As you know, we both agree on very many things, and I have expressed my surprise that you are so in tune with Eastern process thinking and Taoism, yet do not seem to accept the 'Not-two' basis of reality. Yet you and I actually do get along rather well.
I am sure that you came to Platonism through a path that was meaningful to you, such as the Mandelbrot Set. But it is incompatible with the way I make sense of things, which is outlined (far too briefly) in my essay. So I particularly look forward to hearing your idea about how our ideas can coexist.
Best wishes and I look forward to reading your paper.
Best Regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Let me answer mathematically.
One can speak of smooth, topological, and measurable objects and spaces - and relations between same. Waves and fields require spaces that admit smooth relations, and this is considered a looser condition than topological or measurable, which are respectively more strictly defined. I first saw this hierarchy spelled out in a 2000 paper by Connes, but I understand it forms the basis for differential geometry and topology.
However; this all comes into play more or less automatically, when considering how some of the very simplest forms arise. An unbroken space possesses the quality of oneness, or not-two, but the presence of an observer (of whatever form) induces a sense of toward and away from some center. But consider a loop in the C-field and the induced geometry - as it is analogous. A circle is a topological object, having an inside and outside, and a 1-dimensional face, but the space is no longer unbroken - oneness is now divided.
Somehow; even though you have but one field, the whole of Mathematics comes into play as it evolves and complex form emerges.
More later,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 20:00 GMT
Let me expound further here;
You speak of one thing acting upon itself, and it is notable that the one free standing form which can arise and propagate in a single medium (physical systems in nature) is the torus, as is the case with smoke rings. Now of course; the loop or circle constructed above is actually a special case of a torus. If, as in String Theory, we consider the curved field line to be a flux tube - this analogy is made explicit.
But the question of the dimensionality of the space inhabited by such a loop is not a trivial one. I am coming to favor a bi-metric view of the early universe, where one must keep track of both an upper bound and a lower bound upon the array of dimensions that has evolved at a particular stage of the universe's evolution. If the space in which we reside has a non-trivial topology, at this point, that has some interesting consequences we have discussed elsewhere, but its relevance rests upon the very nature of topology.
So the question of whether such Maths are pre-existing is moot.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 00:43 GMT
Jonathan,
You say "let me speak mathematically", then discuss smooth, topological, and measurable objects and spaces, - and relations between same." I could say "let me speak physically, then discuss smooth, topological, and measurable objects - and relations between same."
That is my point. Yes "waves and fields require spaces that admit smooth relations", but that's physical...
view entire post
Jonathan,
You say "let me speak mathematically", then discuss smooth, topological, and measurable objects and spaces, - and relations between same." I could say "let me speak physically, then discuss smooth, topological, and measurable objects - and relations between same."
That is my point. Yes "waves and fields require spaces that admit smooth relations", but that's physical reality! And to say it is "a looser condition than topological or measurable" is simply to impose abstractions on physical reality. And you do this with your physically real brain, and, if I'm correct, your consciousness which is integral with physical reality. I have no objection to the creation or derivation of arbitrarily complex mathematical relations from physical reality. Only to the assumption that these have real existence apart from physical reality.
You note that the unbroken space [or field] has the not-two quality, which is divided when symmetry breaks and more complex forms emerge. This is exactly my point, that all this emerges from an initial unity [or not-two-ness]. Yes, the whole of mathematics emerges as the field evolves. But it emerges from the inherent logic of the physical field, which as far as I can tell, demands self-consistency and forbids contradiction. This alone leads to math. It leads to endless logical physical structures, one of the simplest of which is the counter, which physically implements the Peano axioms, leading to the natural numbers, which Kronecker said leads to all the rest of math.
Yes, the key is the self-interaction, which, as you note, can lead to a torus [and does so in my theory]. All abstract questions of topology and dimension, and what have you, are consequent creations of mind, not inherent "FORMs" existing in Plato-land.
The question is, can one start with real objects and actions, and logical combinations thereof and, first, form a language map that accurately reflects the reality that served as the basis for the evolution of the language, and, second, can one use this language to spin tales that are not physically possible, such as, for example, the sun rising and setting at the same time? Math is the evolved language that emerges from a conscious physical world, such that it can map physical reality, and then go beyond physical reality, just as language allows fairy-tales to go beyond historical novels. But the natural language does not exist in another realm. It evolved from physical reality. And so does math, which is just a 'purer, formal' language.
I think the only point we don't agree on is the supernatural existence of math outside the natural physical realm.
We seem to agree on everything else.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 23:43 GMT
Hello again,
I wanted to comment that I especially liked your comments on linearizing equations. My take is that it is not so much a trick of abstract geometry, nor a matter of conflating a mathematical reality with the physical, as it is a tendency to ignore the fact a simplifying assumption was made.
It is common, for example, to replace Cos (theta) with 1 for a small angular displacement. But this breaks down, once there is more than a tiny excursion. As you point out; the behavior of the system is not linearized at all, but the key point is that the assumption that allows linearization of a non-linear equation has a limited range of applicability.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 06:53 GMT
Jonathan,
Thanks for commenting on my point about linearization. I agree about "a tendency to ignore the fact a simplifying assumption was made." Your example of cos(theta) = 1 as an approximation that works in a limited range is appropriate. I am suggesting that it is misleading to assume that there is even a limited range where a non-linear field behaves linearly. There are only ranges...
view entire post
Jonathan,
Thanks for commenting on my point about linearization. I agree about "a tendency to ignore the fact a simplifying assumption was made." Your example of cos(theta) = 1 as an approximation that works in a limited range is appropriate. I am suggesting that it is misleading to assume that there is even a limited range where a non-linear field behaves linearly. There are only ranges where the available energy is exhausted before non-linear effects become dominant. The effect may look 'linear', but the mechanism is never so.
By the way, I have you to thank for my development of my n-GEM non-linearization scheme, as it was Kauffmann's paper which you brought to our attention that made me realize that gravity can dominate other forces. Then the East and Pretorius paper in Phys Rev Letters the next week sealed the deal!
Thus I'm pleased to point out to you the existence of a
current essay that I believe is very significant, and supports my C-field theory.
However, I just looked at Professor Vishwakarma's page and see that you have already discovered it! It's hard to keep ahead of you, Jonathan. I agree with you that "The ideas presented in this essay are indeed worthy of note." I have read it twice and his arXiv paper, and find it very exciting. In case you haven't realized it, the 'angular momentum of the gravitational field' that he speaks of is just the C-field! And I have, in previous essays, proposed this model, and the associated energy of the field, as the source of dark matter, dark energy, and the WMAP anisotropy, as he seems to be doing. My non-linearization supports these claims even more strongly, as does his paper. I am trying to relate my model to the Kasner solution and finding interesting results. So if you feel his essay is worth a high score, I hope you don't decide to punish me for 'Plato-bashing'!
These FQXi essays are more valuable than most seem to believe. Every year very significant ideas are published here.
Thanks again for the comments,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Ah so My Friend,
I had the pleasure to share a meal with and hear a lecture from Ram Gopal Vishwakarma a few years back, when in Port Angeles for CCC-2. As I recall; he was a student and later colleague of Narlikar, and presented a cyclical universe model at that conference. I think that work may have been related to his essay offering, focusing on one of the solutions mentioned.
And I am very happy to have inspired you by promoting Kauffmann's paper on an upper bound for concentrations of energy. It is interesting that the point of how energy and even gravity are self gravitating is missed. But the subtle point that this leads to an upper bound for energy concentrations is all too easy to miss entirely, so we owe bold thinkers like Steven Kenneth Kauffmann, Christoph, and Gibbons a vote of thanks.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 04:06 GMT
Hello again,
That should have been Christoph Schiller in the above comment, who also pointed out that a lower or upper bound (depending on how described) exists. But I think Kauffmann's insight that there can be a maximum concentration of energy is the cleanest conceptual formulation, or most useful to Cosmology.
Have Fun,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT
Thanks, Edwin. It's a delightful essay full of pearls of wisdom, seemingly simple concepts but steeped in meaning and nuance. I'm impressed.
Perhaps in my simple way I touch upon some of your concepts, probably because you open so many boxes.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 04:59 GMT
Jim,
Thank you. I appreciate your comments at face value, but after reading your essay I treasure your comment. You've obviously put much thought into the topic at hand with emphasis on the role of consciousness and its nature. I enjoyed your entire essay. Your discussion of the number of neurons (100 billion) and connections (1000 trillion) "channeling countless sub-atomic particles in a consciously assembled reality" was excellent! As was collapsing the electron into one state when observed, versus all states when not observed! And the "unimaginable assemblage of trillions upon trillions of ... particles from the superposition state" into a cat! In short, you put the "It from Bit" picture into clear perspective. It helps to bring all scales into view, as opposed to focusing on one particle.
Your summary of various current beliefs about consciousness was masterful. As was your discussion of the Anthropic era. Although your previous essays have focused on gravity and the flow of time and space, this topic seems to tie it all together for you. You succeed in shining a light on some of the fuzzy thinking that resulted in It from Bit. This is not your first essay, but it is your best. Both your writing style and content are superb.
Thanks again for reading my essay and commenting so graciously.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 06:27 GMT
Hi Edwin
It's nice to read you again. You did such an excellent job that I'm afraid I have no points of disagreement. I'm interested in your work because I think we have many points of common, specially, we are suggesting simplicity in theories.
I only have a request. In your work you claim that GR (and perhaps QM) can be derived from your formulation. Of course, the space in this essay is so short that one cannot put all the information. So I'd be glad, if it's not much to ask, if you could show me the derivation of Einstein's equations (and QM if you have it) according to your formulation. Do you have any publication about the derivation?
As well, I wonder if your approach make some new predictions. do you have any comments?
You also say: Gravity is a field, not abstract geometry.
I definitely agree. I'd like to invite you to read my
essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis assuming also that space is not geometry.
I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.
Regards
Israel
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Israel,
Very happy to see you back. Even happier that we have no points of disagreement. Having just read your essay I found nothing to disagree with either. In fact, your final argument about the vacuum as 'material substance' is the major physical fact underlying my model. I don't recall this particular argument. Is it new with you? It is very effective.
Your requests are...
view entire post
Hi Israel,
Very happy to see you back. Even happier that we have no points of disagreement. Having just read your essay I found nothing to disagree with either. In fact, your final argument about the vacuum as 'material substance' is the major physical fact underlying my model. I don't recall this particular argument. Is it new with you? It is very effective.
Your requests are reasonable and I address them here. Recall that I do not claim my Master equation for the evolution of the vacuum 'is' GR or QM but that it 'reduces to' GR and QM in appropriate cases. I have showed that my equation reduces to Einstein's weak field equations in 'Gene Man's World' (on Amazon) and, in abbreviated form, in an earlier FQXi essay. This is done in terms of vector algebra. I'm developing a more generalized derivation using Geometric Algebra. These of course derive only the weak field equations of GR. But Vishwakarma's current essay points out that the stress-energy tensor cannot handle self-gravitation or angular momentum of the gravitational field and has inspired me to investigate a tensor-based derivation of the full field equation.
As for QM, I follow an approach by Sakurai (in 'Modern Quantum Mechanics') to derive Schroedinger's equation from the C-field equation (which is derived from the Master equation). This is presented in my last FQXi essay,
'The Nature of the Wave Function'. It has since been pointed out to me that this is an idealization, treating the C-field as constant, and I have extended this to the case of a variable C-field induced by the particle motion. I've not yet published this generalization.
Since my previous essay I have developed some proficiency using Mathematica. This is reflected in the n-GEM non-linearization technique described in my current essay.
Finally you ask about predictions. I've made a number of predictions in the past, in essays and books, but all of these were based on the assumption of a constant scale factor associated with the C-field, with the value as measured by Martin Tajmar. My n-GEM approach seems to indicate that this is actually a variable factor obtained from the inherent nonlinearity of the field. Therefore I am in the process of reconfirming the results obtained based on the assumption of a constant factor. Additionally, some of my intuitions failed based on the use of the constant, but it looks like they may succeed on the basis of a nonlinear approach. So I'm cautious about predictions until I feel that I fully understand all of the implications of moving from a constant C-field scale factor to a variable strength field. I'm very optimistic about the new approach.
I will make further comments on your essay page.
Thanks again for reading my essay and agreeing with it.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 05:59 GMT
Hi Edwin
Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I misunderstood then. You are talking about the linear approximation of GR. Ok, I'll be looking forward to seeing the results of your nonlinear treatment as well as the predictions. I can see that there is a lot of work to do. Good luck with this.
You: I don't recall this particular argument. Is it new with you? It is very effective.
Well, it is not new with me, but it is new in the sense that I invoke it as an argument in my essay. Most physicists are aware of this but it seems that the majority overlook its relevance.
Best regards
Israel
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 22:52 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I really enjoyed reading your essay. It is lucid, well argued and relevant.I thought it was an interesting approach to the question. I liked your introduction referring to the illustration of the two pointing men and how easy it was to just keep reading to the end. Good luck, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 05:42 GMT
Georgina,
Thanks for reading my essay and for your kind words. I've read yours and will comment on your page. Good luck to you also! Edwin Eugene Klingman
Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Edwin,
Perhaps you haven't noticed my post of 25 June. Though I'm aware that you are having many discussions with other contestants, I do hope that you'll find some time to formulate a reply.
Regards, Anton
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 02:58 GMT
Hi Anton, I'll study these and reply. Thanks for pointing this out!
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 04:22 GMT
Thanks for your replies above Ed,
FYI, professor Vishwakarma is now responding to comments. And in private correspondence, he noted that the current work is indeed an outgrowth of the research in the lecture I attended.
Please note that I have no wish to debate here further the relative value or Platonism or lack thereof. It it pleasant that we can debate and explore the edges of the subject in an academic way, without locking horns.
Perhaps, though I took the attitude in my new essay that Math is integral, the same principles apply if it is emergent instead. You noted after reading my draft, that most of my points stood without that connection. Didn't I say the same about your paper above?
Have Fun,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 05:38 GMT
Jonathan,
If it's emergent, then we agree on almost every thing. And if not, we still agree on almost everything. It's not necessary for friends to agree on everything. It would get boring. So you are right, let's focus on the things we both find exciting, such as Kauffmann's, Schiller's and Vishwakarma's work, and how it relates to ours.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 21:15 GMT
In a conversation with Gerard 't Hooft during FFP10, when I inquired about the calculational mechanism for a computing universe (Planck sized space atoms perhaps?) he said it wasn't necessary, because the laws of nature do the calculating for us. Perhaps by calling them that, any dispute between us is avoided, because the same 'natural law' can have its expression in either Math or Physics - depending on what kind of knowledge we seek, concrete or abstract.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 07:39 GMT
Dear Eugene,
Thank you for asking me to give my opinion about your essay. I will do it in the coming days.
As an invited editor at the journal Neuroquantology I have some interest in this kind of topics although, as many sientists, I do not have a clear opinion about the deep nature of gravity and the information it contains.
Approaching the subject probably needs quite sophisticated mathematics. I just tried to think about the perception of time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403020
and found afterwards that the formalism relates to Riemmann hypothesis as well
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1012.4665
You received many comments on your essay, and I will try to contribute.
Best regards,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:02 GMT
Dear Michel,
I am pleased that you found something of interest, and look forward to your comments. I have printed out the two papers you reference and will study them.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 13:35 GMT
Dear Edwin (or Eugene),
I have now red your stimulating essay and tried to get some hints on your reasoning, especially about the 'awareness" of gravity, for a possible coupling to my own research. The challenge would be to put mass on diagrams decribing the wholeness of quantum observables (such as the dessins d'enfants created in my essay). May be at a further stage it will be possible to convert the bits attached to the measurement space (there the Riemmann sphere rigidified at three points) into invariants having the meanig of mass. I still don't know.
Thanks for reading my essay and good luck.
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear Michel,
I have had a chance to review the two papers you referenced. The Riemann paper discusses the details of a specific partition function, which I find interesting as I base the applicability of the Born probability to my wave function model on the partition function. The other paper, on time perception is also interesting. I had not seen the Poincare discussion of the Continuum, and found that fascinating, as well as your connection. I am somewhat confused as to whether you are proposing the phase locking as the 'mechanism' of time perception or of the 'scaling' of time perception? I can understand how this could relate to scaling, but not perception as I understand it.
Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. I hope it stimulates some ideas for you.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT
Dr.E.E.Klingman,
I'm yet a bit slower to enter lately into your marvelous essay. So far I'm yet realize, I think, there is same left and right or mirror image questions to resolve the 'It from bit' or 'bit from it', we have almost similar opinion. In my submitted essay, "It from bit' equally 'bit fro it", is nothing but a same statement written on a mirror and it depends on stands of observer.
Best wishes
Dipak Kumar Bhunia
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:37 GMT
Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,
Thank you for your gracious comment. I have read your paper and believe we overlap as follows: you support that nature is not (or cannot be proven to be) analog, and consider observers (us) to be digital: "then nature that perceives through such digits or quantum must appear as a digital." [and] "the digital observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels beyond that digital limit. "
This is a well-thought-out proposition, and the locus of our agreement seems to be here. I tend to believe that the deeper levels are non-digital, but, as you may recall, I view the transfer of information as energy transfer, that does, or does not cross a threshold. This is the digitization you refer to. If the threshold is crossed, then the digit is '1', else '0'. This sets the digital limit of observation. The details of the observed world are so rich that we cannot expect any two essays in this contest to agree upon all of them, but the basic mechanism seems to be in agreement.
Thanks again for reading and commenting.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 16:13 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I thought your essay was very original approach, but simultaneously it is very logical and nothing is in there I disagree with. Physics does require many constants to make certain areas work, so the elephant example was an excellent illustration.
Suggesting gravity is self aware as the only true field makes sense if we ever want to unify the four forces, and I suspect that Einstein was correct when he suggested that certain configurations of space-time incorporate the effects of electromagnetism. An area of particular interest to me.
I've opted for an approach that thinks about how information can pass between Observer & the Observed within curved space-time. Hope you get time to read it.
Best wishes for the contest - great essay!
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:34 GMT
Dear Antony,
Thanks for your very gracious comment.
Fermi, who claimed "with five parameters I can fit an elephant", probably never dreamed that our main theory of particles would have more parameters than particles!
I too am interested in how electromagnetism arises. I have a 'mechanism' in my theory that explains this, but it is probably the weakest part of my theory. On the other hand, I can show how the nonlinear gravito-magnetic field confines quarks, which is about the only thing that the 'strong' force does. The theory also both produces and transforms particles which is what the 'weak' force does. So if my electromagnetic 'mechanism' is correct, the forces are unified.
It's hard to keep up with the number of essayists this year, but I will read yours and comment on your page.
Thanks again, and good luck in the contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 12:38 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I think poor Fermi would feel it was a nightmare. I'm very keen to hear more about your unification theory, as mine has its strongest part in the electromagnetism and mass, followed by weak and finally strong.
Thanks for your kind comments on my page and for writing an excellent essay!
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Steven P Sax wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 22:45 GMT
Hi Dr. Klingman,
Your essay is very fascinating, and I really enjoyed how you explored the deeper connections between physics and mathematics, and the art of physical theory itself. Also your use of the references was great - in particular your application of Smolin is very enlightening. I'm inspired to read your other works (such as your PhD thesis), and also probably will pick up Smolin's Time Reborn.
Thanks again,
Steve Sax
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 23:58 GMT
Dear Steven,
Thank you for your comments. I am very pleased that you enjoyed my essay, because, as I remarked on your page, "I found your essay the most careful and complete study of the nature of information [the topic of this contest] of the hundred I've read." In particular, you do not mix Shannon's information entropy and thermodynamic entropy carelessly, as is often done. And, as I noted, "You present a more convincing argument for an info/area relation than most I've seen." These brief comments do not exhaust the topics in your essay, which I recommend to my other readers.
So thanks for reading my essay and commenting. And thanks for writing yours.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 13:33 GMT
Hi Eugene,
I enjoyed your lively style and use of entertaining and explicative graphics! :)
I enjoy and agree with your statement: "...Wheeler’s "absence of a clear definition of the term ‘bit’ as elementary unit in establishment of meaning" imply awareness, since there is no meaning absent awareness. He believed in a Participatory Universe..." It does seem to me that the "it from bit" concept breaks down without some sort of reciprocal relationship between the measurer and the measured.
I am fairly new to the argument that gravity is "anti-entropic" although I also encountered the concept recently in the book "Time Reborn" by Smolin.I'm still thinking about how I relate to/interpret this approach. Have you read much Ilya Prigogine or much of Barbour's works on the principle of maximal variety?
"From Oppenheimer’s deep interest in Zen, to Cristi’s Tao essay, physicists are fascinated by the idea that unity underlies an apparent surface division of the world into related and correlated entities. Yet Zen koans remind us how terribly difficult it is for brains that have mastered the skill of partitioning and relating systems to reach mindful awareness of undivided Nature: the ‘Not two’ aspect of reality" -- Indeed!!! Bit logic isn't able to convey koans. I definitely feel a comradery in your appeal to zen. My use of the phrase, "Is Bit It?" came about as a sort of koan--is bit "it" (made from the stuff of the universe), or is bit "it" (all there is at all). ^_^ The "superposition of states" (I am using this non-literally) experienced by a human mind processing a couple ways of interpreting a koan or a haiku may represent something fundamental about the nature of the universe.
Cheers, and thanks again for putting forward intriguing and fun ideas and for sharing ideas on my thread,
Jennifer Nielsen
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 18:19 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
I'm really glad that you enjoyed the essay, and that you understood the point about koans and the problem of 'un-learning' how to discriminate and correlate, which we begin learning at least as soon as we emerge from the womb. And you are correct that "bit logic isn't able to convey koans."
The idea of gravity as "anti-entropic" does bear thinking about. Smolin states it as the case, and I have intuited this in other places, but I don't think the idea is rigorously defined. I haven't read Prigogine recently, but have done so extensively in the past. I also am aware of many of Barbour's ideas, but not as sold on them.
On your blog you comment that it's exciting to be part of FQXi. It truly is exciting to find 175+ ten-page essays dealing with such an important and current topic. I always derive a number of new and significant ideas from these contests. As I indicated on your page, and will repeat here for other readers, I think some key ideas are to be found in, for example: Wang Xiong's treatment of information as symmetry breaking, Mark Feeley's treatment of probability in QM, McHarris' essay on non-linearity, Janzen's treatment of time and relativity, Gordon Watson's analysis of Bell's inequality and Vishwakarma's essay on the stress-energy tensor. These are examples of why FQXi is a great place! There are many, many more.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 18:29 GMT
P.S. Are you familiar with the idea of Roger Penrose that gravity and mass is what causes decoherence? Was wondering how you would interpret his ideas.
Thanks,
Jennifer
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 19:41 GMT
Jennifer,
Penrose is a brilliant man, but I don't buy his idea of gravity and QM nor his and Hameroff's idea of consciousness as the QM of microtubules. I think most attempts to base consciousness on quantum mechanics are founded on the logic that "one thing we don't understand" must be (related to) "another thing we don't understand". Detailed pictures of microtubules are pretty, but they are a small part of any cell. If you want to get really blown away, work through Bruce Alberts "Molecular Biology of the Cell".
For an understanding of my ideas about decoherence, see my previous essay,
The Nature of the Wave Function. It produces the supposedly impossible correlation -a.b when Bob and Alice choose independent settings, upon which Bell's statistics is based.
Thanks for your questions and your interest. With your attitude, you should go far.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT
Although the above is still my opinion, I note that Phys Rev Letters yesterday published Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 021302 (12 July 2013) "Effective Field Theory Approach to Gravitationally Induced Decoherence", to the effect that: "Adopting the viewpoint that the standard perturbative quantization of general relativity provides an effective description of quantum gravity that is valid at ordinary energies, we show that gravity as an environment induces the rapid decoherence of stationary matter superposition states when the energy differences in the superposition exceed the Planck energy scale."
Those interested in this topic might wish to check this paper out.
Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 02:50 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Of the things I understood in your essay, I find nothing to disagree with worth disagreeing with, but that leaves many references, your math and hence most of your essay opaque to my understanding. I leave it up to you to see elements of agreement or disagreement in the following observations, none of which are meant as criticism.
When philosophers considered space and...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
Of the things I understood in your essay, I find nothing to disagree with worth disagreeing with, but that leaves many references, your math and hence most of your essay opaque to my understanding. I leave it up to you to see elements of agreement or disagreement in the following observations, none of which are meant as criticism.
When philosophers considered space and time as continuous and independent of each other, the notion demanded everything in space be recreated from moment to moment. And while that was tenable for a time, it could not stand in a large complex universe. Most things are obviously discrete (granular) and some things continuous (smooth), but debate about what was divisible and indivisible was heading in one direction only because discrete was winning at every observation. Those who could extrapolate, extrapolated a discrete universe made from dimensionless points, and those who stopped short of extrapolating to infinity and beyond saw the universe as being comprised of very small granularities. But that led to a conflict between philosophy and dogma. For the complexity of a large continuous universe full of very small things to be recreated from moment to moment required a God infinitely more powerful than anything previously imagined, i.e. God*, that is, God to the power of infinity.
Einstein united continuous space and continuous time, i.e. space-time, and what he got for his troubles was a block-universe, and when infinitely small slices of time accommodate a universe of small things frozen relative to each other, no argument could explain how observations could be made from within this frozen universe. Observation must then be the purview of something or someone beyond space-time. The product of Small-Things* and Small-Slices* equates to a God**, otherwise slices containing incomprehensible complexity can not be created one after the other; and not just this, but this time God must be removed from space and time. And while this did not upset dogma, it is not a reasonable proposition. You can not unite space and time via math without continuous time; time is up, the gig is up as they say. The reason physics persists with things continuous is because mathematics doesn't work well in a universe of discrete entities. And the math falls over completely the moment time is not continuous, the best mathematicians can do is a symbol for an increment in time which can be infinitely small (but never zero because that exposes the error in reasoning). To move forward I choose explanations where derivatives are transparent, I choose a granular universe where everything which exists has extension in three dimensions. I say it's time philosophers took philosophy back from scientists, and in that effort I propose that "Law from no Law" be rephrased "Law from things Predictable".
When I think of space itself as comprised of discrete elements, i.e. granular (pbit), and time as a function of not just the elements of space, but the fabric of space made possible by the self organization of predictable elements, I am compelled to explain why elements and fabric exist in a symbiotic way, and for that I must explain purpose. For those who say gravity must be explained also, I say the elements of space are the elements of gravity, and the purpose of space, time and gravity are all concerned with appreciating the persistent material of the universe. In other words granularity need not be recreated from moment to moment, only appreciated, and appreciation requires observation, and observation is a complimentary measurement; that is, observation is a concurrent measurement of one thing by another and visa-versa, and that means both things must be changed by each others "structured measurement" if the instantiation of a momentary "observer" is to be actual.
I hope this helps, and await your opinion as to the relevance of my observations.
Best Regards.
Zoran.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 05:31 GMT
Hi Zoran,
I appreciate your description of the problem as you see it. There appear to be several issues:
Space and time independent versus 'block time'
Continuous versus discrete
Existence versus re-creation
First, space and time. I don't view space as 'a container'. I view the existence of the primordial field as "defining space". No field, no space. ...
view entire post
Hi Zoran,
I appreciate your description of the problem as you see it. There appear to be several issues:
Space and time independent versus 'block time'
Continuous versus discrete
Existence versus re-creation
First, space and time. I don't view space as 'a container'. I view the existence of the primordial field as "defining space". No field, no space. Second, you rightly remark that what Einstein got for his troubles was a [frozen] block-universe. This is what Ken Wharton writes of. But a key problem is that there is no 'now' in a block universe. On your page we discussed Daryl Janzen's essay[s]. Daryl analyzes time in detail that I cannot even touch in a comment, so I will simply refer you to him for the detailed answer. I conceive of a 3-D universe existing right now in time. I also agree with Daryl that relativists for a century have confused relativity of synchronicity [which is true] for relativity of simultaneity [which is false].
The next issue is continuous or discrete. There are at least three reasons that I opt for the continuum. The first, and most important, is that I can understand continuity, and I cannot conceive of a discrete universe. I've written elsewhere about topological awareness, which we are born with [but most forget] versus metric awareness, where we learned to overlay "distances" on our perceptions, so that we quickly pick the apple from the tree but do not waste much time trying to pick the moon from the sky, even though they appear visually to be about the same size. Topological, universal connectedness is real to me. The metric map which 'dis'-connects one from far places is a utilitarian overlay. The second reason is simplicity. While you say continuity is mathematically simple and "math doesn't work well in a universe of discrete entities", I've had mathematicians tell me continuity is far more complicated. But I'm a physicist, and physical continuity is simpler than discreteness. It does not bother me that the application of language to reality runs into problems. Language is required for "thinking" (a.k.a., "talking to oneself") but it is not required for awareness. In short, mathematical difficulties in dealing with reality do not concern me. Math emerges from physical reality, physical reality does not emerge from math. If it did one would expect no mathematical difficulties. Lest you conclude that I think math is irrelevant, my third reason is that my master equation for the one self-interacting field is scale-invariant (before symmetry breaks). This means that the solution can be multiplied by an arbitrary scale factor, and it is still a solution. But this means that there is no "smallest distance" as is required by discrete models.
There are probably other reasons for the continuum, but these three satisfy me.
By the way, the Master equation evolves such that terms on the left-hand side of the equation (interpretable as linear flow) are equal to terms on the right-hand side (physically interpretable as circular motion) only if they both equal a constant value, which has dimensions of action. Thus action is quantized or discrete, not space or time.
The final issue is something I don't understand, which is your insistence on re-creation versus existence. You insist that it's necessary for God to "re-create" a large universe of small things from moment to moment. For a continuum existing continuously in time, I don't see this at all. So you have framed things in a way that is inconsistent with the way I experience the world, and in a way I frankly cannot conceive physically. Yet you say that "elements of space are elements of gravity" which is how I began this comment, and how I formulated the Master equation. And you conclude that "the purpose of space, time, and gravity are all concerned with appreciating the persistent material of the universe [which] need not be re-created from moment to moment" which is my position. So we seem to agree on the big picture, but differ in details, which, as I've noted, is true of every essayist here. No two essays agree on all details. In other words we both appear to be realists and 'presentists' and view gravity as the key substance of the universe, with space implied by gravity and time passing right now. That puts us in closer agreement than some in this contest.
I quote Korzybski to the effect that "the map is not the territory". I believe the territory is physically real. Languages are used to draw maps. Philosophers use natural language, physicists use mathematical language. When physicists stick to real, measurable things, they have an advantage over philosophers. When physicists make up unrealistic things willy-nilly, as has been the case for about half a century, they get crazy things that don't match reality. I can see why this would upset philosophers. It upsets some physicists.
Thanks for the comment above. I hope my response satisfies you.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 07:54 GMT
Edwin,
From your comments it seems that we are in accord in most basic principles, and I think closer than you believe, let me clear up the "final issue" you mention, and I quote:
"The final issue is something I don't understand, which is your insistence on re-creation versus existence. You insist that it's necessary for God to "re-create" a large universe of small things from moment...
view entire post
Edwin,
From your comments it seems that we are in accord in most basic principles, and I think closer than you believe, let me clear up the "final issue" you mention, and I quote:
"The final issue is something I don't understand, which is your insistence on re-creation versus existence. You insist that it's necessary for God to "re-create" a large universe of small things from moment to moment. For a continuum existing continuously in time, I don't see this at all. So you have framed things in a way that is inconsistent with the way I experience the world, and in a way I frankly cannot conceive physically. Yet you say that "elements of space are elements of gravity" which is how I began this comment, and how I formulated the Master equation. And you conclude that "the purpose of space, time, and gravity are all concerned with appreciating the persistent material of the universe [which] need not be re-created from moment to moment" which is my position."
In response to your interpretation I can say that I do not subscribe to continuous time in any way shape or form, and so I can speak of space and gravity as granular and time as a function of the elements of space/gravity, and I can speak of (now) in the same way as you do. But I appreciate other positions also, ideas held now and in the past. In Einstein's space-time continuum persistence (now) must be shared with an infinity of past and present instances, which you can not avoid if you insist on time being continuous and something in and of itself, i.e. the fourth dimension. But in the past, in the old philosophy, when time is divorced from space entirely, recreation is the only option; I do not believe or insist on it myself, I was just pointing out an idea which was at one point considered and a history of ideas on the nature of time and its relation to space. Presentists of all persuasions have a hard time coping with time when it's continuous, and feel they must pander to a block-universe in one shape or form, and this because they have no other choice. All I am trying to do is offer an alternative consistent with the ideals of Presentism and without the complication of time being something in and of itself.
Great discussion, thank you.
Zoran.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,
Your essay was recommended to me by Ralph Waldo Walker III. I'm glad I read it - I found it fascinating, and very well written. It also has much in common with my work.
You open your argument by showing that physics builds its models from its own assumptions, so that we shouldn't be too impressed that the data obtained seems to bear these out. This does indeed...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Klingman,
Your essay was recommended to me by Ralph Waldo Walker III. I'm glad I read it - I found it fascinating, and very well written. It also has much in common with my work.
You open your argument by showing that physics builds its models from its own assumptions, so that we shouldn't be too impressed that the data obtained seems to bear these out. This does indeed remind us to be adventuresome, and to question the prevailing view.
As you point out, it has become unfashionable to consider the Cosmos in simple physical terms, even though that's how it all began – back when the mind first wandered from the pages of the Bible, and began to see space and time for what they truly are.
My take on physical reality, however, diverges from yours in the matter of there being other Universes. Our system is the result of self-interaction, as you say, but to claim that such self-interaction can only have occurred once is an assumption that is harder to justify than its opposite – that a General Field of cosmic systems is perpetually forming.
This is an important point, because these cosmic systems must have certain effects upon each other, and in my essay I show that some of these can be deduced.
The fear that prevents serious thinkers from venturing in this direction is that they might end up simply fudging vexing questions - or still worse, might find themselves in the company of mystics and other strange birds. We are frail, and we usually don't want to appear ridiculous; but if it makes sense, we should go with it.
Therefore, I describe a General Field of Cosmae along perfectly logical lines, and refer to it only in the context of its likely effects upon our Cosmos. These effects include the evolution of Organic and Sensory-Cognitive Vortices, once an Inorganic Vortex has come into being along the lines that you describe.
I was struck by your brilliant expression of gravito-magnetism in mathematical terms. A gravitational-magnetic force that underlies both Inorganic and Organic evolution is central to my paradigm also, and yields a structure of physical reality that involves the Human Observer, and even the Mind.
These Organic and Sensory-Cognitive Vortices are shown to be correlated with each other and with the Inorganic Vortex, as a result of their simultaneous and similar interaction with the Gravitational-Magnetic Field: They remain distinct from one another – that is, they do not interact directly – so that borders are formed between them that delineate certain Zones, within which our parameter systems (including mathematics) are most effective.
These borders are not fixed, but are rather in continuous flux – as a result of the perpetual evolutionary effect of the Gravitational-Magnetic Force.
This in turn means that the It and Bit must be correlated, and indeed must be continually altering their relationship (as we have experienced since diverging from other animals). In other words, information must 'shape itself', as do Inorganic and Organic phenomena.
Though it is undoubtedly true that 'without the physical reality there can be no information', we have obviously defined this physical reality by continuously interacting with it over the course of our evolution; thus what we know as information is a distinctly Human variation of it that ultimately emerges from, and is directly affected by, the Gravitational-Magnetic Field.
Though mine is a common sense and axiomatic paradigm, I believe your mathematical insights could be applied to the physical reality it describes. You'll also appreciate that this three-field structure very usefully formalizes the concept of a participatory universe.
In this spirit, I hope you'll have a look and let me know what you think.
Congratulations on this very significant work,
All the best,
John.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 02:16 GMT
Hello John,
Thank you for your kind words. I'll respond to your comment here, and try to comment on your page.
We do agree on the desirability of simplicity. Recall that Einstein said "as simple as possible, but no simpler." As you note, we diverge on there being other universes. This, of course, cannot (currently) be proved one way or the other, so we're both safe in our assumptions. Your argument for it sounds very reasonable, and, if the effects you propose are seen, that will certainly be strong support for your view. I do not understand your various different vortices, so I'll have to read your paper more closely. Vortices are very important in my model, but they are all of the same type.
I did notice that you focus on the gravito-magnetic field, but did not discern whether this refers to the "magnetic" aspect of gravity, or whether you are combining gravity with the magnetic field of electromagnetism. I've made a few incorrect assumptions about what others mean by similar terminology, so I'm being more careful now. It seems like the vortices are of different types in your theory, however you do assume that they are involved with evolution of the field through self interaction. Reading your comment more closely I see that your three fields remain distinct from each other, which differs from my model, although the electromagnetic field does emerge in my theory after the original symmetry breaks. In other words we seem to overlap in some important areas but diverge in others. Part of the beauty of FQXi is the stimulation this provides, enabling us to potentially improve our theories based on what we learn here.
Thanks again for your comment. I'll re-read your essay to understand it better.
Best Regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
john stephan selye replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,
I am looking forward to hearing from you after you've had a chance to read my essay in detail - not only do we seem to overlap, but I suspect there are no contradictions.
Thanks for getting back to me - I should mention that I did rate your essay very highly, and would like to consider its mathematical aspects more carefully later on.
Yours Truly,
John.
report post as inappropriate
john stephan selye replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 12:56 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,
Thanks for the comparison of our outlooks you left on my page. All very good points that I would like to consider at greater length later. The good and bad thing about the contest is that it does impel one to rate as many essays as possible, rather than to explore any in depth.
All the Best,
John.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 13:28 GMT
Hello Edwin,
I see you talk above on your preference for a continuous nature of reality... What do you think of the Planck length? Does it have any physical significance?
But main reason I am here is that I posted the below on Armin Shirazi's blog and said I would be copying you in view your huge gravitational investments.
-------------------------------------------
Dear Armin,
You ask me a couple of head scratching questions over at my blog, let me "retaliate". Talking of backgrounds, about which you know so much, particularly section 4 of essay:
1. When a celestial body curves the space around it according to GR, is this curved space carried along with the orbiting body's motion?
Or
2. Does the body leave this space behind, thereby uncurving it, while curving the previously uncurved space in its new orbital location?
Or
3. Is there a third consideration?
If you answer positively to 1), would this not be important to experiments like the M-M expt?
If it is 2) you answer positively to, will such a space capable of being curved and uncurved, not be a substantival background? Taking note, that with the action-reaction principle, something can only be said capable of being acted upon IF it can also react. Then as you ask me will this reaction be instantaneous?
One head-scratching turn deserves another!
Regards,
Akinbo
CC: Peter Jackson, Edwin Klingman
------------------------------------------------
Best
regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
Thanks for commenting on the comments. You tend to ask very good questions. I'll give you my current views on these issues.
First; the Planck length. I view this as an operational limit. The de Broglie wavelength grows shorter with increased energy and Kauffmann [referenced in my essay] has shown that the self-gravitation of extremely high energy density leads to a...
view entire post
Hi Akinbo,
Thanks for commenting on the comments. You tend to ask very good questions. I'll give you my current views on these issues.
First; the Planck length. I view this as an operational limit. The de Broglie wavelength grows shorter with increased energy and Kauffmann [referenced in my essay] has shown that the self-gravitation of extremely high energy density leads to a 'horizon' or limiting condition, that occurs at the Planck length. This does not say that shorter lengths do not exist, only that they are not susceptible to measurement. I do not subscribe to the belief that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. Measurement entails an interference that changes the nature of the unmeasured reality.
Second; 'curved space'. Recall that "there is no space absent field". Also, that I view the gravitational field, with its energy and mass, as material 'substance'. In this regard I tend to view 'curved space' as 'variable density field', and the measurable effects on light as similar to those of varying index of refraction. The effects on both length and speed of light should mimic 'curvature'. I recall discussions of this on Omar Perez's page last year. I've not worked out the mathematics to confirm this approach but I believe others have. Thus, in this picture the 'curvature' is "carried with" the momentum density. Note that I am effectively replacing "curvature of space" with "density of field" and this affects the sense of the choices you present.
Third, the M-M experiment. As a consequence of the above views, the 'aether' is the local gravity field. Since the local gravity on earth, where M-M performed their experiment, is effectively "static" ('carried with the earth') then one would predict a null result.
I began by saying that "field" is a more apt concept than "space" and that the field is, in your words, "a substantival background". The general belief, and I think implicit in GR, is that changes in the field propagate at the speed of light. Jonathan Dickau, on another FQXi blog, discusses some current opinions that gravity has a higher speed, but he has not provided any references.
I'm not sure of what action-reaction example you have in mind, but much of my current focus is on self-interaction of gravity, typically driven by an 'external' source of energy.
I hope the above addresses your questions.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
F Earle Fox wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 21:05 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I had penned a long reply to your stuff, which disappeared into a puff of nothing, which I assert violates the law of conservation of energy. So would like an instantaneous return of my thoughts... O well. So here I begin again. But I am first writing offline so that I can control things better.
You wrote on my blog...:
Einstein said,"There is no space...
view entire post
Dear Edwin,
I had penned a long reply to your stuff, which disappeared into a puff of nothing, which I assert violates the law of conservation of energy. So would like an instantaneous return of my thoughts... O well. So here I begin again. But I am first writing offline so that I can control things better.
You wrote on my blog...:
Einstein said,"There is no space absent of field." In other words, the gravitational field fills space completely. Although you may or may not think of this field as a 'substance', it is considered to have energy (Maxwell taught us fields have energy) and hence mass (Einstein taught us energy has mass equivalence) and a number of writers of books on gravitation consider it a substance (as do I). Your question implies that you think of space as 'empty' ,but it is entirely possible that the primordial gravity field gave rise to space. Your second question, about what qualities would make it the source of all else is the topic of my essay
You are correct in that I used to imagine space to be “empty”, but when I read Berkeley, I adopted his view, which critiqued Newton’s notion of a God-created world-machine, which in turn caused our perceptions of itself.
With Berkeley’s view I now see space, not as a container in which “things” reside, but as a mental and perceptual x, y, z, t coordinate system by which we keep track of where and when we are, for ourselves in the world and to coordinate with other perceivers. B saw the world-machine as an unhelpful intruder because it could never itself be observed (except by the perceptions themselves, which begs the question of its existence), so that we could never empirically know it to be there, nor be able to compare it with our perceptions to make sure we were perceiving correctly. Knowledge of the machine would be entirely metaphysical, not empirical. So it would have to be a logical conclusion, not an empirical one. So he cut out the “middleman” and went directly to God as the cause and the coordinator of the cosmos for us inhabitants. Occam’s razor with a vengeance. God is by nature a metaphysical entity, not physical, and this requires the cosmological argument (or something similar) to justify belief in Him.
So I am very interested in your attempt to understand gravity as the source of all things. I have always understood gravity to be an attraction between objects with mass. But I could easily imagine a space entirely empty. So I am not sure what to think of Einstein’s notion above. I suspect that he was the victim, as many others, of the collapse of real causality (a personal God), and so had to find substitutes within the cosmos itself.
In any event, B’s view, if true, changes the whole discussion on the meaning of space at all, and the sense in which physical matter can be the cause of anything. We no longer have things of a Newtonian sort bumping around, we rather have perceptions which are related to each other by laws of behavior – what I called “bundles of behavior” in my essay.
In either case, there has to be an adequate “objective unifier of apperception” to tie together the disparate events, experiments, etc., that we want to think are part of the “same” world, and under the “same” laws. How gravity might be a better candidate than God for doing that I wait to see.Dear Edwin,
I had penned a long reply to your stuff, which disappeared into a puff of nothing, which I assert violates the law of conservation of energy. So would like an instantaneous return of my thoughts... O well. So here I begin again. But I am writing offline so that I can control things better.
You wrote on my blog...:
Einstein said,"There is no space absent of field." In other words, the gravitational field fills space completely. Although you may or may not think of this field as a 'substance', it is considered to have energy (Maxwell taught us fields have energy) and hence mass (Einstein taught us energy has mass equivalence) and a number of writers of books on gravitation consider it a substance (as do I). Your question implies that you think of space as 'empty' ,but it is entirely possible that the primordial gravity field gave rise to space. Your second question, about what qualities would make it the source of all else is the topic of my essay
You are correct in that I used to imagine space to be “empty”, but when I read Berkeley, I adopted his view, which critiqued Newton’s notion of a God-created world-machine, which in turn caused our perceptions of itself.
With Berkeley’s view I now see space, not as a container in which “things” reside, but as a mental and perceptual x, y, z, t coordinate system by which we keep track of where and when we are, for ourselves in the world and to coordinate with other perceivers. B saw the world-machine as an unhelpful intruder because it could never itself be observed (except by the perceptions themselves, which begs the question of its existence), so that we could never empirically know it to be there, nor be able to compare it with our perceptions to make sure we were perceiving correctly. Knowledge of the machine would be entirely metaphysical, not empirical. So it would have to be a logical conclusion, not an empirical one. So he cut out the “middleman” and went directly to God as the cause and the coordinator of the cosmos for us inhabitants. Occam’s razor with a vengeance. God is by nature a metaphysical entity, not physical, and this requires the cosmological argument (or something similar) to justify belief in Him.
So I am very interested in your attempt to understand gravity as the source of all things. I have always understood gravity to be an attraction between objects with mass. But I could easily imagine a space entirely empty. So I am not sure what to think of Einstein’s notion above. I suspect that he was the victim, as many others, of the collapse of real causality (a personal God), and so had to find substitutes within the cosmos itself.
In any event, B’s view, if true, changes the whole discussion on the meaning of space at all, and the sense in which physical matter can be the cause of anything. We no longer have things of a Newtonian sort bumping around, we rather have perceptions which are related to each other by laws of behavior – what I called “bundles of behavior” in my essay.
In either case, there has to be an adequate “objective unifier of apperception” to tie together the disparate events, experiments, etc., that we want to think are part of the “same” world, and under the “same” laws. How gravity might be a better candidate than God for doing that I wait to see.
Dear Edwin,
I had penned a long reply to your stuff, which disappeared into a puff of nothing, which I assert violates the law of conservation of energy. So would like an instantaneous return of my thoughts... O well. So here I begin again. But I am writing offline so that I can control things better.
You wrote on my blog...:
Einstein said,"There is no space absent of field." In other words, the gravitational field fills space completely. Although you may or may not think of this field as a 'substance', it is considered to have energy (Maxwell taught us fields have energy) and hence mass (Einstein taught us energy has mass equivalence) and a number of writers of books on gravitation consider it a substance (as do I). Your question implies that you think of space as 'empty' ,but it is entirely possible that the primordial gravity field gave rise to space. Your second question, about what qualities would make it the source of all else is the topic of my essay
You are correct in that I used to imagine space to be at least potentially “empty”, but when I read Berkeley, I adopted his view, which critiqued Newton’s notion of a God-created world-machine, which in turn caused our perceptions of itself.
With Berkeley’s view I now see space, not as a container in which “things” reside, but as a mental and perceptual x, y, z, t coordinate system by which we keep track of where and when we are, for ourselves in the world and to coordinate with other perceivers. B saw the world-machine as an unhelpful intruder because it could never itself be observed (except through the perceptions themselves, which begs the question of its existence), so that we could never empirically know it to be there, nor be able to compare it with our perceptions to make sure we were perceiving correctly. Knowledge of the machine would be entirely metaphysical, not empirical. It would have to be a logical conclusion, not an empirical one. So he cut out the “middleman” and went directly to God as the cause and the coordinator of the cosmos for us inhabitants. Occam’s razor with a vengeance. God is by nature a metaphysical entity, not physical, and this requires the cosmological argument (or something similar) to justify belief in Him (the subject of my doctoral thesis).
So I am very interested in your attempt to understand gravity as the source of all things. I have always understood gravity to be an attraction between objects with mass. But I could easily imagine a space entirely empty of objects. So I am not sure what to think of Einstein’s notion above. I suspect that he was the victim, as many others, of the collapse of real causality (a personal God), and so had to find substitutes within the cosmos itself.
In any event, B’s view, if true, changes the whole discussion on the meaning of space at all, and the sense in which physical matter can be the cause of anything. We no longer have things of a Newtonian sort bumping around, we rather have perceptions which are related to each other by laws of behavior – what I called “bundles of behavior” in my essay.
In either case, there has to be an adequate “objective unifier of apperception” to tie together the disparate events, experiments, etc., that we want to think are part of the “same” world, and under the “same” laws. How gravity might be a better candidate than God for doing that I wait to see.
(You were right, we need more space than nine pages to present our case....)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
F Earle Fox replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 21:11 GMT
Hi, Edwin,
I should have added that the above was written after I read your paper. It will take another reading to digest adequately, but will do so and respond again.
Blessings, Earle
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 23:01 GMT
Dear Earle,
While you convey many relevant thoughts, I don't believe that you understood the basic thrust of my essay. I do not propose gravity as the basic "cause" of our phenomenal universe. I make no conjecture as to how gravity "came to be", and I believe that those who attempt to explain its existence as the result of mathematics are very misguided.
Nevertheless, gravity is...
view entire post
Dear Earle,
While you convey many relevant thoughts, I don't believe that you understood the basic thrust of my essay. I do not propose gravity as the basic "cause" of our phenomenal universe. I make no conjecture as to how gravity "came to be", and I believe that those who attempt to explain its existence as the result of mathematics are very misguided.
Nevertheless, gravity is real, and there seems good reason to believe that it has been real since "the Beginning". The question that I treat is whether a multitude of fields is necessary, as Susskind and others presume, or whether gravity alone could evolve to our current state of existence. I further assume that, if only one substance existed initially, then it could evolve only through self-interaction. My only logical requirement is self-consistency. In other words, if God designed this universe, he did so in a manner that does not contradict itself. Since, as I explain elsewhere, it is easy to derive logic circuits based simply on the logical properties of physical reality, I feel free to use logic and its extension, mathematics, to describe self-interactive evolution, which leads to a simple master equation from which all major physics equations seem to derive.
In other words, if one assumes a God, then one can believe he designed a really clever universe that proceeds, from one thing, to evolve to all things, or one can believe he originally had to resort to lots of disjoint pieces to make everything work. Different physicists make different choices, but I believe I'm the only one who carries this plan out in this manner, without inventing numerous things which have never been seen.
You probably have your own idea about how God went about creating the world, but, as I recall, you're not a physicist, so you probably haven't focused on the same concerns that I do.
I agree with you that space is not a "container" but a "map" by which we keep track of position ("where and when we are") and as such has no substantial reality. You then state God is a metaphysical entity, not physical. But, while your profession focuses on the metaphysical, as a physicist I focus on the physical, and my essay is a snapshot of my physical theory. Metaphysics underlies all physics, but physicists rightly suppress dependence on metaphysics to the extent possible. Thus I do not conjecture "why" or "how" the primordial field came into existence, only how it evolved, making the simplest possible assumption.
I'm sure I am missing some of the subtlety of Berkeley's critique of the 'world-machine', but either the world-machine exists or is an illusion. All those who think it is an illusion can jump off a high building, and then we can take a vote.
I do not see how this view would necessarily conflict with your view, but I have not yet read your thesis. But I have read your preface or introduction (it's not labelled) and my view seems not incompatible with yours. You focus on the nature of the Creator, while I focus more on the nature of Creation. If you reread my essay, please keep the above in mind.
Thank you for reading my essay and for your extended comment. I appreciate it very much.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
F Earle Fox replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 20:53 GMT
Hi, Edwin,
Thanks you. That does clarify a lot. I am in the midst of a move to another city, so spare time is scarce, but will reread your essay and respond again. I am very glad to have gotten into this discussion on FQXi, brings me up to date on a lot of issues. The depth of the mess into which philosophy of physics has fallen is startling, but I should have been forewarned by my own original doctoral thesis as to the problems ahead given what philosophers of science were saying in the 1960's.
Our views might indeed be compatible. I will have to think through your thoughts above with another reread of your essay.
Blessings, Earle
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 22:33 GMT
Hi Earle,
Hope your move goes well. I don't envy you!
I've enjoyed our discussion, and would look forward to more. I think our views are more compatible than they might seem at first. I'm glad that my essay may help to bring the current state of physics into focus. I too hope to read your thesis, but it won't be any time soon. I do hope you re-read my essay with the above clarification in mind. After your move, if you're interested in further communications, my email address is at the '@ 16:33 GMT' comment below.
Best wishes to you,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 06:07 GMT
Dear Edwin, what an accomplished man, what a renaissance man! What a beautiful essay and what a pleasure to read it. You started with the Suzhou Qingming Scroll that shows the celebration of ordinary lives during the worship of ancestors festival in Suzhou market. You mockingly ask the quetion of this contest: "the ambiguity of life. I hear the man on the left saying "Information is real, matter...
view entire post
Dear Edwin, what an accomplished man, what a renaissance man! What a beautiful essay and what a pleasure to read it. You started with the Suzhou Qingming Scroll that shows the celebration of ordinary lives during the worship of ancestors festival in Suzhou market. You mockingly ask the quetion of this contest: "the ambiguity of life. I hear the man on the left saying "Information is real, matter is imaginary", while the one on the right proclaims, "Matter is real, information is imagined".
Which is correct?.... This contest could have been titled: "Map from territory, or territory from map?"
Smolin says of purely math-based ideas: “sooner or later we’ll find ourselves just making stuff up.”
Modern physics, tied maximally to math, minimally to reality, contains a lot of ‘made up stuff’.'
You indicted the professional physicists of bias and they have failed to realize or acknowledge their bias or ignorance. You presented your case: "QED’s worst gives 4% accuracy and QCD’s best about 1%—both ten times worse than the theory of epicycles—yet dogma such as virtual particles, QCD color, Bell non- locality or other premises are never to be questioned."
Then brilliantly, you proposed your powerful but simple alternative. You wrote: "...we can assume that only one real field existed initially. If so, it could evolve only through
self-interaction. If we call this field φ and the change or evolution operator ∇ , then this English statement about evolution has a math equivalent10 (expressed in Geometric Algebra notation):
∇φ =φφ. . Powerful stuff! Great achievement! I like it very much.
However this conclusion below, I beg to differ with respect. You wrote: "The model is thus a structure or form in hardware (computer or brain) and the addition of measurement data ‘in-forms’, or develops improved in-ternal form-al structure. This is the meaning of in-form-ation. It derives from the physical hardware that incorporates the map or model, and is inherently and unquestionably "bit from it". Without the physical, there simply is no information. To argue otherwise one must show how a world with no physical reality can be brought into existence from information. Wheeler’s remark "how to combine bits in fantastically large numbers to obtain what we call existence" was just unsupported fantasy." In contrast, in my essay Child of Qbit in time, I postulate that bit = it that it can come from bit or bit from it. Because as you pointed out, it is one field that interacts with itself. Thus bit interacts with itself as bit or it. As Shakespeare told us, our thinkings make things right or wrong or bit or it. KQID describes our reality that all things are one Qbit(00,1,-1). This Qbit is the singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects its computations in Einstein complex coordinates(like Pythagoras triangles) with A = pc and S = mc^2 satisfies Einstein vector space in time |E) = A + iS, where S and A are real, and i is imaginary number satisfies i^2 = -1, S = mc2 and A = pc that satisfies (mc2)2+(pc)2= 1 onto the 2D screen (our Multiverse event horizon) Lm which is Minkowski's Null Geodesics that in turn project those Einstein coordinates in our real world that we really feel as alive and conscious. Yes we agree there is only one field, in KQID is our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit.
I agree with what you said: "I hypothesize that awareness came into existence but once. A consciousness field does not arise when a number of Lego blocks are first assembled in correct order— and re-arise with every organism that is born! It’s been a Participatory Universe from the beginning." Here, we use different terms naturally, I say this is that Qbit and this Qbit manifest itself into myriads things in a field as described in KQID equation υτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) in the form of conscious and aware entity as described in this equation ψI( CTE) where I is information as the bits- wave function of consciousness(C), time(T) and energy(E). Of course then, as you deduced: "Thus the field is aware of both position and motion aspects of reality — Space and Time!" And of course that
"Bits and information imply consciousness; knowledge and meaning of information require awareness!" We have similar idea but using different terms and symbols. What a wonderful essay beyond words to describe. I rated it the best score. Please comment on my essay and rate it accordingly. Thanks for this gift, Leo KoGuan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Leo KoGuan,
Such a comment from a man of your accomplishment is very meaningful. Thank you sincerely. Yes, we use different physics terminology, but share the same metaphysics.
Your Ouroboros equation is a mathematical Qingming Scroll representing universal observing, singing, dancing, and exchanging, seen over and over in Suzhou festival scenes.
As I read your essay, I thought how few American physicists celebrate our universe with unabashed joy. Only one came to mind, so I was not at all surprised to see only Carl Sagan's name appear in your sonnet, "Child of Qbit in time".
As you so clearly demonstrate in reality, you are hero of your own life, owner of your own destiny... "hacking Existence's operating system according to your own desire, I swear!"
Yes, let the mind do what it likes.
It is an exchange of gifts, Edwin Eugene Klingman
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 01:54 GMT
Dear Edwin. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. 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.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 02:38 GMT
Edwin,
I very much appreciate your thought provoking essay. You gave me much to think about!
You can represent the dualism of the C-field using a 2D complex space (Eddington's phase dimension). Widening the phase angle indicates an increase in the conditional entropy of the observer (corresponding to the expansion of spacetime). Narrowing the phase angle indicates an increase in entanglement entropy (gravity). (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)
In Eddington's hypersphere model universe, the toroidal topology of a spin 1/2 particle and the universe is the same. As with the dualism of the C-field, one can envisage winding states reciprocally generating meridial mass flow. The radius R of the winding states stretches towards the maximum limit (the Cosmic Event Horizon) as quantized meridial mass states diminish to a continuum (de Sitter spacetime). Conversely, as R deceases, the spacing between the winding states grows smaller until they form a continuum at the quantum critical point, where entanglement entropy is maximum.
A hypersphere can turn inside out and fold back into itself, like a Clifford torus. The lines of latitude and longitude are interchanged, and with them, the corresponding mass flows. A 720 degree spherical rotation of a spin 1/2 particle has analogs in homotopy group inversion on a hypersphere. If we consider passing "inside" a 1/2 particle, the winding and the meridial states flip at the crossover. Maximum entropy winding states in de Sitter space become minimum entropy meridial flow in AdS diminishing to a continuum. In effect, we now have the same physics (in reverse) at i/R as we did at R.
Best wishes,
Richard Shand
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 06:28 GMT
Richard,
I'm very glad that my essay gave you a lot to think about. That's the purpose of these things, as I see it. I also found your essay stimulating and will comment on your page.
We agree that information is contextual, and that we are perceptually guided (you say 'contained') by our brain. You ask how can we, based on illusory projections, comprehend the basic nature of...
view entire post
Richard,
I'm very glad that my essay gave you a lot to think about. That's the purpose of these things, as I see it. I also found your essay stimulating and will comment on your page.
We agree that information is contextual, and that we are perceptually guided (you say 'contained') by our brain. You ask how can we, based on illusory projections, comprehend the basic nature of reality. First, I believe that illusion, from stage magic, carries the implication of distortion, which is unfortunate. With some exceptions, I do not believe our brains distort reality. Second, if the nature of reality is as I suggest, then we are part and parcel of (and Wheeler's 'participating in') reality and are self-aware of this fact. We are made of the hierarchically 'in-formed' local structures 'condensed' from the self-aware field. In which case we *can* comprehend the basic nature of reality.
I like your treatment of the phase dimension, and found your treatment of "the screen" interesting, although I have strong reservations about the holographic principle. I have some interesting ideas related to the complex plane and Riemann sphere and dynamic models our brains build, but these far exceed a comment. Nevertheless, your essay triggered me to write up several pages of 'brain model' ideas.
I too find scale significant and like that you pointed out that energy density is scale-free. My Master equation is scale-invariant and my key equations are energy-density-based. And, like Eddington, my electron model and cosmological model are toroidal. The electron has spin one-half, which makes sense in my model. Since I haven't really worked out the spin of the cosmological model, thanks for reminding me of this.
Your 'ant analogy' was also fun.
I was at a small meeting last week where one of the participants presented the picture of entropy you develop with the coin states and the Venn-like diagrams. I still don't understand this completely, and I'm glad to have your essay to study this perspective.
And I've also found much to agree with in your comments to others.
So I got a lot out of your essay and I'm really pleased that mine gave you much to think about.
Best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I kept wondering why I have not been seeing any posts regarding interesting essays, under the "Recent Forum Posts". It just dawned on me that only posts about blogs, not essays, appear there now. Bummer!
I recently encountered this essay, from a local college, that I think you might find interesting, in the context of your essay:
Fields and Particles and...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
I kept wondering why I have not been seeing any posts regarding interesting essays, under the "Recent Forum Posts". It just dawned on me that only posts about blogs, not essays, appear there now. Bummer!
I recently encountered this essay, from a local college, that I think you might find interesting, in the context of your essay:
Fields and Particles and BeingThe essay, by Dylan Casey, begins on p. 57 of the PDF file.
The essay is published in "The St. John's Review". St. John's is a rather unique, small liberal arts college, whose entire curriculum is devoted to reading and discussing "Great Books". Consequently, the faculty members, called tutors, are well versed in the history of philosophical and scientific thought. Dylan Casey is a physicist, turned tutor. His essay concerns how notions about the nature of "particles" and "fields" evolved over the centuries and into modern Field Theory. Because of his position, at the college, he is rather more cognizant of the distinction between actual physics and metaphysical speculation, than most modern physicists.
The essay begins by noting the problem of "Action at a Distance", encountered in Particle Interactions. It then notes that Faraday "coined the term field", to avoid this problem; particles don't interact, at a distance, with other particles, they only interact with the field they are immersed in. Subsequently, Maxwell and Einstein delved into the origins of such fields and hit upon the notion that particles might disturb the field near them, and these disturbances propagate, at finite speed, towards other particles, and thereby alter the field near them, thereby altering their response to their local field.
This brings me to your intriguing "master equation". As you know, I'm not particularly fond of pulling mathematical rabbits out of physical hats. But I like the idea of starting solely with a single, self-interacting field. But why assume that the *entire* field is interacting with itself? Perhaps, given any finite speed for the propagation of disturbances, and a large physical universe, only localized interactions are possible, like schools of fish, and flocks of birds. The evolution of the interaction occurs as a result of the constantly changing subset of the field, that is actually influencing any given particle, at any given moment.
I could say more regarding my take on gravity as geometry, consciousness, the Holographic Principle and the like, but, at least for now, I'd mainly like to hear your thoughts regarding global vs. local self-interaction.
Let me give you a little more idea of where I am coming from. You are familiar with some of my concerns regarding the usage of Fourier Transforms in Field Theory. Let me be explicit about it, in the present context. Spatial Fourier Transforms integrate over all space. Temporal ones integrate over all time. But, they cannot integrate over a disturbance that has not yet arrived, unless one reintroduces instantaneous action, not just at a spatial distance, but temporal, future ones, as well. Hence they cannot be a correct model for any local interaction. This is why communications engineers introduced concepts like "instantaneous frequency" as opposed to "Fourier Frequency", to extract information from only localized fields.; localized in both space and time.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT
I forgot to mention something important. It occurred to me, while reading Casey's essay; while the introduction of fields may provide a solution to the action at a distance problem, another, more fundamental problem remains. How do particles sense/measure the field? None of our hard-won technology can do it. And we keep building *bigger* instruments, like telescopes and particle colliders to increase the sensitivity to the things they do sense. So, when you drastically decrease the instrument size, down to a single electron, with no internal structure, how can that little bit of unsophisticated technology accurately sense the field around it, so that it can response accordingly? Even when you consider particles to be merely some aspect of the field, such as a resonance or vortex within the field, if the field evolves, why don't the nature of the particles evolve along with it? Why is an electron always an electron? Do electrons in different parts of the universe, subject to different localized fields, behave differently than those in the field near us?
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 16:33 GMT
Rob,
Great to hear from you! I'll study your comments above and reply.
I was really looking forward to your essay on this topic, and am disappointed that you did not find time to write one. By the way, I have tried to find your email address during the last year and failed. If you would, please send it to klingman@geneman.com.
Hope you are well,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 23:25 GMT
Dear Rob,
Thanks for your interesting questions and for the link to Casey's essay. You ask "why assume that the *entire* field is interacting with itself?" Initially, I do *not* assume either that the entire field is interacting with itself or not... just that evolution can only come from self-interaction. This leads to a symbolic equation, in which neither field nor "change operator" is...
view entire post
Dear Rob,
Thanks for your interesting questions and for the link to Casey's essay. You ask "why assume that the *entire* field is interacting with itself?" Initially, I do *not* assume either that the entire field is interacting with itself or not... just that evolution can only come from self-interaction. This leads to a symbolic equation, in which neither field nor "change operator" is defined. That's as far as we can go without more knowledge, so I call on Maxwell's teaching that fields have energy and Einstein's that energy has mass and these two lead to a form similar to Newton's gravitational equation. Therefore I hypothesize that the field is gravity and the change operator is the differential operator, del. The differential operator is inherently local, despite that it may be completely compatible with global "least action" principles or conservative fields in which endpoints are independent of paths.
I'm glad that you find the idea of starting with a single, self-interacting, field interesting. As I note in my essay, this leads to both QM and GR equations, but I have recently strengthened these links considerably.
As Casey points out, if the action is a function of the square of the distance, how do particles [lacking the field] know how far apart they are? This is global. You seem to be asking how do particles sense the local field. But you presume structureless particles, I do not. My particles have structure, manifested in spin. But 'sensing' and 'acting' are mysterious properties that, in effect, define what it means to be a field. I'm not sure there is any physical 'mechanism' that will explain this capability.
You seem to rely on the quantum field theory assumption of a 'field per particle' and that particles are 'vibrations' in the field. That is not my model. And the question "why don't particles evolve?" (as one would expect from vibrations) is also known as "the mass gap" problem. I have an answer to this that does not fit neatly into a comment. I hope to soon model it with Mathematica. I have several problems with quantum field theory. I think there is a logical problem (page 72, Casey) with 1) all electrons are quanta of the same field, and 2) the field endures, but particles come and go, transforming one into the other. As indicated in my essay, I have problems with the virtual particles of QED, which I tend to see as a fudge factor.
As you have so aptly noted, we discuss particles in English without assigning alphabetic character 'properties' to particles, but when we use Fourier descriptions we assign superposition 'properties'. That is a big mistake.
Jonathan Dickau, on another blog, says that some are proposing that gravity is not limited to the speed of light. I have not seen their arguments, but I tend to think of it as limited to c, and this is also assumed in GR. There's also the possibility, probably untestable, that the 'self-awareness' aspect of the field is not so limited, but the 'action' or 'force' aspects are. There are a number of possibilities, and I have not thought through all of them. So global 'self-awareness' is an open question.
Thanks for reading my essay and your comments, I'm always interested in your opinions.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 01:22 GMT
Edwin,
I did not mean to give the impression that i agree with the assumptions of quantum field theory. Let me explain the point I am interested in regarding "local interaction".
Assume, for the moment, that Newton's law of gravity is valid, namely that gravity is dependent on the inverse square of the distance between masses. If this force were to act instantaneously at a distance,...
view entire post
Edwin,
I did not mean to give the impression that i agree with the assumptions of quantum field theory. Let me explain the point I am interested in regarding "local interaction".
Assume, for the moment, that Newton's law of gravity is valid, namely that gravity is dependent on the inverse square of the distance between masses. If this force were to act instantaneously at a distance, then all masses, even those infinitely far away, would have to be integrated into the total force. But, if the effect of the force has to travel, at a finite speed, then a distance threshold exists, at which masses more distant than the threshold have no effect, since the force has not had enough time to propagate out to that distance. Hence, the force law remains an inverse square, out the the threshold distance, then becomes a step-function, and the force becomes identically zero. Furthermore, the distance threshold constantly increases, so that the amount of mass within the threshold also increases.
Comparing such a force, to Newton's force, would result in an apparent repulsive force (dark energy), that is actually not repulsive, but just diminished effective mass, acting upon very distant objects. The force law appears to evolve, but the cause is not a change in the force per unit mass, but a change in the amount of mass that acts upon another mass.
In your master equation, it is not the del operator acting upon the field, but the other side of the equation that I wonder about. I am not sure how the field times the field could represent the situation described above, in which the "effective" field, is a constantly changing subset of the total field. Unlike Newton's case, one cannot integrate over all space in order to determine the field. Determination of the field would be highly dependent on the initial conditions, namely, the distribution of masses, as they are "swept into" the effective threshold range.
It is also interesting to think about General Relativity, from this non-geometric point-of view. Objects do not respond gravitationally to where other objects are, but instead respond to where they used to be. The greatest differences between these two types of response, occur in situations in which the relative geometry changes the fastest. Hence, in the solar system, one would expect the fastest moving planet, Mercury, to have the greatest discrepancy between the two models; like the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
Hi Rob,
Didn't mean to imply that you agree with QFT, just distinguishing specifics of my theory from QFT approach.
I understand your 'step-function' model and agree that it seems to imply a kind of dark energy.
My model assumes that initially there is nothing but field, and space is defined by the extent of the field. The solution represents a scale-invariant distribution of...
view entire post
Hi Rob,
Didn't mean to imply that you agree with QFT, just distinguishing specifics of my theory from QFT approach.
I understand your 'step-function' model and agree that it seems to imply a kind of dark energy.
My model assumes that initially there is nothing but field, and space is defined by the extent of the field. The solution represents a scale-invariant distribution of energy, hence mass, that "fills" space (loosely speaking). So the initial distribution of energy/mass is probably a close approximation to later distributions. Once spherical symmetry breaks (as it must -- I haven't yet calculated 'when' or 'why') local particles are formed. I don't assume that this adds any mass, just "clumps" it, so the distribution probably holds. In this sense I don't see a step function. But I haven't worked out all of the cosmological dynamics. My calculations have focused more on particle aspects of nonlinear gravity.
It is also the case that local C-field dynamics can "oppose" local gravity, hence providing a sort of dark energy. My gross calculations hint that this is reasonable, but I want to try for a Mathematica solution.
So my current idea of the cosmological implications of my model is based on an initial scale-invariant solution that is assumed to hold perfectly until symmetry breaks, and then yield relatively small changes in distribution. I think this model is in rough agreement with observations, but I really have not had time to check it out. I'm afraid my attitude is that, if I can do a better job on particles than the Standard Model, then the cosmological aspects of the theory just "have to" work!
Also, we've got a pretty good handle on particles, whereas there's a new data point for cosmology almost every week, and I expect this to continue for some time. This discourages trying to match my theory to data that may only be good for a short time.
Since I've posted my essay I've been able to come up with a straightforward derivation of general relativity from my master equation. I'm in process of writing that up now. In other words, I expect my theory to show more differences with particle physics than with general relativity.
Thanks for elaborating on your previous comments,
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 12:02 GMT
Hi Edwin,
It's the step functions I don't see that bother me. Starting out in physics, I learned about using differential equations to describe data. Then, in numerical analysis, I learned to approximate derivatives with finite differences. In other words, initially, I came to think of differentials as the "accurate" description, and differences as the "approximate" description. I now have come to believe the exact opposite. Differentials admit of infinite bandwidths and step functions. I see no empirical evidence that such things exist in reality. Hence, differential equations are merely approximate representations of a finite bandwidth reality. They cannot, by themselves, implicitly define a finite bandwidth process. All the information content that limits the bandwidth must come from outside the equation - from the auxiliary conditions.
For me, the issue is not it from bit or bit from it. It is bit from finite bandwidth. It is the finite bandwidth of reality, that makes it exactly describable via discrete samples, but only approximately describable via differential equations that do not properly model the bandwidth.
I have mentioned the significance of a priori known information, many times in these discussions. An a priori know bandwidth can be built explicitly into a difference equation, but not a differential equation.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 15:26 GMT
Edwin,
I was playing a bit fast and loose with the bandwidth terminology in my previous post. Let me be more precise. Think of the del operator being modeled as either an Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) spatial filter or as a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter. By integrating over all the masses out to infinite, Newton's law models the operator as an IIR. But if signals propagate at finite speeds, the correct model must be an FIR filter, but one whose response grows at the speed of propagation.
As long as all the masses are within the range of the FIR response (as in most earth bound experiments), the models produce exactly the same results. But at cosmic distances, they differ. The difference results from the finite extent of the filter's "action" rather than a difference in the inverse square law.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear Rob,
I need to review IIR and FIR as I've not studied signal analysis for decades (except a minor review of Fourier Optics occasioned by your comments last year). My argument is, essentially, that there are no signals to propagate. As you know, outside of the radius of the spherical mass, all the mass may be considered to reside at a point at the 'origin', independent of size or...
view entire post
Dear Rob,
I need to review IIR and FIR as I've not studied signal analysis for decades (except a minor review of Fourier Optics occasioned by your comments last year). My argument is, essentially, that there are no signals to propagate. As you know, outside of the radius of the spherical mass, all the mass may be considered to reside at a point at the 'origin', independent of size or density. The scale-invariant solution of my equation says that the original density distribution of the field energy, hence mass, is scale invariant hence time independent. This implies that it remains the same during inflation, and I believe, post-inflation. My working assumption is that when the field 'condenses' to mass, this does not change the distribution (except locally). In other words there is no signal, step or otherwise, to propagate that would have any dark energy effect. With no signal, IIR and FIR should be essentially equivalent as far as their effects:
Scale invariance = static distribution = no signal to propagate
If one could, say, lop off half the universe, this would change the mass distribution significantly and your analysis would be more relevant. This is similar to the problem that would occur if the sun suddenly disappeared. The step function analysis of this problem seems correct to me.
Your remarks on difference versus differential are interesting and I'll give more thought to those. I certainly agree that reality has a finite bandwidth, finite speed, finite extent -- is finite period. Thus Fourier integration over infinite ranges are clearly approximations. This is why free particles have mathematically infinite distribution, which is clearly ridiculous (although quantum field theorists I know seem not to realize this). On the other hand bound particles such as a hydrogen atom are highly localized and more susceptible to differential treatment. The mistakes, in my opinion, occur when infinite solution techniques are applied to physical reality. I believe I recall you commenting on Dickau's blog about Kauffmann's treatment of self gravitation as limiting upper bound on local energy. Whereas quantum field theory has had these infinite energies for over half a century, Kauffmann shows them to be physically unrealistic (which should have been obvious anyway).
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 11:17 GMT
Edwin,
Don't take my comments about IIR and FIR filters to literally, in the mathematical sense. Rather, I'm trying to develop two visual analogies, for "self-interaction", one for fields causing gravity, one for particles causing gravity. Call them "Gravity on the surface of a Pond" and "Gravity on the surface of a Petri Dish".
Field View - Gravity on the surface of a...
view entire post
Edwin,
Don't take my comments about IIR and FIR filters to literally, in the mathematical sense. Rather, I'm trying to develop two visual analogies, for "self-interaction", one for fields causing gravity, one for particles causing gravity. Call them "Gravity on the surface of a Pond" and "Gravity on the surface of a Petri Dish".
Field View - Gravity on the surface of a Pond:
Boats move on the surface, and create wakes. Wakes propagate outward and disturb the other boats.
Particle View - Gravity on the surface of a Petri Dish - FIR version - non-Newtonian:
A "Big Bang" scatters individual bacterial cells (matter) across an expanding Petri dish. At first the distances between them are too great for any interaction to occur between the scattered cells. But each cell develops into an expanding colony (FIR filter taps), expanding outward at some propagation speed (same as wake in previous model). Eventually some colonies touch others and a central force (like a spring) is created, by the strands of the colony pulling together with a force inversely proportional to the distance squared.
Particle View - Gravity on the surface of a Petri Dish - IIR version - Newtonian:
Same Big Bang scattering, except that instead of scattering individual cells that grow into colonies, it scatters infinitely large colonies (IIR) so that the force producing strands are instantly put in place, all the way out to infinity, rather than having to grow outward at some propagation speed.
In the Field View, a wave-like signal propagates between the masses, and produces the interaction.
In the Particle View, an "operator" associated with each mass, the strands, expands outward, either instantly or gradually, until they contact other operators, and cause an interaction. In the field view, a "sensible" signal expands outward to meet a static sensor. In the particle view, the sensor (filter or operator) expands outward to meet a static entity being sensed.
Neither the disturbance in the field, nor the operators are directly detectable. But the resulting interactions would produce detectable movement of the masses. How would the movements differ, if the force between the masses was always the same, as Newton's inverse square, or whatever?
The IIR, Newtonian Petri Dish results in a global, instantaneous action-at-a-distance. But the FIR, non-Newtonian interaction is localized by the finite, but growing size, of each colony's force producing strands, or "lines of force".
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 17:58 GMT
Afterword:
It was the Casey essay that got me thinking about "How did Faraday and Maxwell visualize the problem?" My guess is that Faraday saw it as the Particle View, IIR version. As per the bible, "In the beginning..." the matter and the interconnecting "lines of force" were put into place, and then left to interact. Maxwell's much more mathematical view centered upon unchanging differential operators; since the operators cannot expand to meet the particles, the particles must somehow travel to meet the operators - hence the field.
But with my background, I tend to think of operators like tapped delay lines - the pond has dispersed tide gauges, like FIR filter taps, whose outputs can be combined to form difference operators etc. (filters), which can change over time. Tide gauges can be moved, their number changed, and the manner of interconnecting them can change.
Perhaps an analogy could be made between the expanding cosmos and the growing cortex of the brain. The whole brain grows in size, within it, neurons grow, and grow connections (lines of force) and signals (forces) are transmitted via those connections. The interactions thus have three relevant speeds; speed of brain growth, speed of neuronal connection growth, speed of interaction along established lines of force.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 21:23 GMT
Rob, each of those three paragraphs is a little jewel, and together represent the reason I always look forward to communicating with you.
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 21:58 GMT
Oops. I missed the comment before the afterword.
I should emphasize that my field equations express mass dependence in terms of mass density, so particles and fields, at least in the early moments of the universe, are best viewed as simply different density distributions. Of course as the universe grows the field density diminishes while particle density is locked into localized distributions. Due to essentially random fluctuations in density these tend to aggregate into galaxies and galactic clusters. If, as I suppose, the global distribution remains effectively scale-invariant, then there is very little non-local change propagating, and galactic formation is viewed as local with no global significance.
So initially it is the fields causing gravity, globally. Then local "condensation" produces particles (in the expanding universe). The fields continue to weaken but the particles aggregate and produce stronger, but localized, fields. In other words the nature of the self-interaction varies until finally the most significant self-interaction is in our brains.
Which is fun!
In your particle view above, the FIR version is closest to what I imagine, but this assumes that there are signals spreading outward. If the distribution of mass does not change, as seen beyond a certain radius, then there are no signals, so there is no 'expanding colony' except in higher order approximations. But in any case, the FIR view seems more realistic.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 23:39 GMT
Edwin,
Our struggle reminds me of one of my favorite movie lines, from Clint Eastwood's "Eiger Sanction". The mountain climbers are in trouble. Clint says to one of them, "Don't worry, we'll be OK". The other responds, "I do not think so. But we shall continue in style!"
Keep up the good fight!
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 20:00 GMT
Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman,
Nice work, It gets my highest mark and I also admire Alfred Korzybski.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Don (knower of all),
I very much enjoyed your essay, both the ideas expressed and the superb humor (just a little computer glitch on the pod bay doors!). I thought you integrated lambda-hopping with Zeno, Newton, Heisenberg, Feynman, Wheeler and Einstein very well. And we both agree that "quantum mechanics is made up a mathematical story that fits the data" but has big gaps in the physics. As one who has a bad case of the continuity gene, I'm not yet on the lambda bandwagon, but I believe that these FQXi essays are the ideal vehicle for presenting our ideas to the community, improving the ideas from user feedback, and presenting the idea again in the context of the new topic, if it fits (or can be made to fit) the topic.
Yours was the most fun essay of all, and you managed to keep lambda-hopping in our awareness and Siri was an excellent foil.
Thanks again for reading and commenting.
Have fun,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Don Limuti replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 15:36 GMT
Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman,
Thanks, for a most positive review. You captured my work perfectly. I am under no illusions a fundamental discontinuity of motion (not time and space) can be accepted readily (the gene thing). But allow me to suggest to you that at some time in the future you may walk up thinking: "why did I ever believe that matter and energy must have a continuous existence".
Given that just about all entrants in this contest have the gene, it is amazing how well I am doing.
And Siri tells me that Edwin Eugene Klingman is master of the game"
Thanks,
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 05:55 GMT
Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman,
Thanks for posting on my blog. That was very kind of you to point out to my readers that I believe in the continuity of space-time. That is something that I do not explicitly point out and it should be.
We are very close in outlook.
One of my goals is to topple the uncertainty principle. Do you have similar leanings?
What do you think of this notion: photons and particles do not move, but they do change positions. What we call velocity is actually a calculation from position to position. If this does not immediately drive you crazy, checkout this experiment that I believe can be performed:
http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/20_Experiments-_QM.html
Nothing moves but everything changes....
I do not know if you can agree with a lot of my speculations, but I appreciate your openness.
You and a few others make this contest great.
Thanks,
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 02:33 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I very much enjoyed your essay. You wrote:
1. "Without the physical, there simply is no information. To argue otherwise one must show how a world with no physical reality can be brought into existence from information. Wheeler's remark "how to combine bits in fantastically large numbers to obtain what we call existence" was just unsupported fantasy."
I think the...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
I very much enjoyed your essay. You wrote:
1. "Without the physical, there simply is no information. To argue otherwise one must show how a world with no physical reality can be brought into existence from information. Wheeler's remark "how to combine bits in fantastically large numbers to obtain what we call existence" was just unsupported fantasy."
I think the question is whether what we experience as "physical" is really better understood as "virtual". Is our "physical reality" an illusion? When we look out at the world, are we just seeing an immersive virtual illusion? We have the example (or analogy) of software agents in a virtual world. What they might "perceive" as "physical" we know to be "virtual", that is, just based on information. Are we in the same position, that everything we take as "real" is virtual and the ground of being is unobservable?
2. "It's been a Participatory Universe from the beginning."
I agree that is the simplest explanation.
While yours is an elegant bottom-up explanation for the cosmos, my essay
Software Cosmos takes a top-down approach. While my starting point is very different, my picture does include a hyperspherical gravito-electric field (i.e. without boundary conditions) that may provide a venue for yours. You also may like the fact that I endorse Geometric Algebra and do not require Inflation in my model. Anyway, I hope you find some food for thought or a reference or two in there that will be of use to you.
Hugh
P.S. I have a copy of your Microprocessor Systems Design (vol II) still on my bookshelf, from my days of developing operating systems for new computer hardware. Chapter 7, which describes the construction of a floating point processor, is a remarkable account of how a higher order can be constructed from simpler parts. Consider that today's virtual worlds like Second Life, while implemented in software, are reliant on decent floating point calculations. We could say that conceiving and implementing the FPU design is where the physical world opens to the possibility of hosting a virtual world. You described that transition in 62 pages that are still enjoyable today as a reminder of the ineffable pleasure of seeing such possibilities open up.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 20:27 GMT
Dear Hugh,
Thank you for your comment and your analysis. I've just read your fascinating essay and will respond (mostly) on your page, however I will say here that it seems to be one of the most serious approaches to software cosmos that I have read.
Your ask, "is our "physical reality" an illusion?" This is of course the key question. You then ask "when we look out at the world,...
view entire post
Dear Hugh,
Thank you for your comment and your analysis. I've just read your fascinating essay and will respond (mostly) on your page, however I will say here that it seems to be one of the most serious approaches to software cosmos that I have read.
Your ask, "is our "physical reality" an illusion?" This is of course the key question. You then ask "when we look out at the world, are we just seeing an immense virtual illusion?" and you mention 'Second Life' in your comment. Several years ago I spent some months in 'Second Life', and it is certainly a powerful example of what the last decades technology can accomplish. If one projects this to the 'ultimate' then a software cosmos seems more feasible.
As you note in your postscript, I do have hardware and software experience, and I cannot conceive of how one produces the software without the hardware. This is the 'It from Bit' aspect that I get hung up on. For example you mention that "the implicate representation can be encoded for storage efficiency...". Storage in what? I agree, in principle, that we can compute the dynamics of the world to a degree that visually everything we see is 'virtual'. But it doesn't solve the problem of my self-awareness (at least for me it doesn't).
I very much like your mathematical analysis based on geometric algebra, Joy's ideas, Rowlands and your other references. And you are correct that I find your references very interesting. Thanks for those, too. I'm also a fan of Doug Sweetser and reference him in an earlier essay. But I was unaware of Finkelstein's GA approach to QED. I also agree with you that fields, rather than individual particles, are more practical in the implicate.
Finally, you ask, "if the universe is a simulation, can we detect its 'hardware'?". (Thanks for the references that address this question.) Instead, you ask "can we detect its software?", and you propose to search for "fractal creasing".
In short, you've opened up a whole genre of research in your references. I do not believe this approach is satisfactory as an explanation of awareness, as I am aware of much besides visual input, including being directly aware of gravity. Nevertheless you've written a masterful essay that has made me aware of many new ideas and relevant resources and that's worth a 10!
For your information, since you enjoyed my decades-old bit-slice design of a floating-point computation unit, I've recently (~2008) implemented a much improved version in an FPGA and combined this with my 'iMEM' Intelligent memory architecture, designed specifically to produce exactly the kind of dynamic calculations you write about. I did not see your email address, so please email me at klingman@geneman.com.
Thanks for reading my essay and commenting, but most of all thanks for writing your essay and calling it to my attention.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:28 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Thanks for your comments and compliments. You wrote:
> I cannot conceive of how one produces the software without the hardware.
I agree that there has to be some kind of "hardware". But I do not think it has to be what we call "physical" (And that is what I took to be the "It" of the "It from Bit"). Of course, that means I should come up with a proposal for what...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
Thanks for your comments and compliments. You wrote:
> I cannot conceive of how one produces the software without the hardware.
I agree that there has to be some kind of "hardware". But I do not think it has to be what we call "physical" (And that is what I took to be the "It" of the "It from Bit"). Of course, that means I should come up with a proposal for what kind of "hardware" is involved. I think that this is a difficult question because many kinds of hardware can generate the same software effects, as I mention in the essay.
> I agree, in principle, that we can compute the dynamics of the world to a degree that visually everything we see is 'virtual'. But it doesn't solve the problem of my self-awareness (at least for me it doesn't).
There are a lot of interesting issues related to awareness, and unfortunately (or fortunately!) the essay length limit prevented me getting into them. The first thing I would note is that learning and memory do not
seem to depend on a physical brain. So the question is where is memory held if not in the brain?
One advantage of the software cosmos model postulating an "unobservable hardware" basis for the physical world is that same basis can be suggested for storing our memories. In other words, if the world is virtual, then our memories could be akin to those of AI software agents that use the hardware memory rather than needing any representation in their virtual world for it.
Of course, this suggestion really just kicks the can down the road, and inquisitive minds will want to know how the invisible hardware works...
My hope is that figuring out the first level will give us enough clues that we can make a guess about these even more difficult questions regarding consciousness.
> Nevertheless you've written a masterful essay that has made me aware of many new ideas and relevant resources and that's worth a 10!
Thank you, I am delighted you liked it so much!
> I've recently (~2008) implemented a much improved version in an FPGA and combined this with my 'iMEM' Intelligent memory architecture, designed specifically to produce exactly the kind of dynamic calculations you write about.
I would love to see it... I will send you an email. Perhaps you will join with essayist Brian Ji to design the geometric algebra processing hardware for my software cosmos. :)
Hugh
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT
Hi Hugh,
A few remarks. I'm glad you agree there has to be some kind of "hardware". I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say it doesn't have to be "physical". Of course one instruction set can simulate another instruction set and the simulation can simulate another instruction set and so on ad infinitum, but this only goes forward. There must be the original physical instruction decoder on which the whole chain is based. I'd be very interested in what you come up with in this regard.
Yes that darn essay length limit gets in everybody's way. But you note that "learning and memory do not seem to depend on the physical brain." Could you elaborate on this.
I'm a little confused on the "unobservable hardware" basis for storing memories in a virtual world. In the physical world, as I see it, the things themselves store the initial data ("memory") themselves. And their ongoing state keeps track of ("remembers") their current state.
Thanks for the email, and the suggestion of geometric algebra processing hardware. We can conduct this discussion off-line.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 01:07 GMT
Hi Edwin,
> I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say it doesn't have to be "physical".
Simply that, a simulation does not have to represent within it the "hardware" that is running the simulation. Second Life does not have to have a large server room appear inside its virtual world. (Nevertheless, there is such a server room running the simulation. )
If the "physical...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
> I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say it doesn't have to be "physical".
Simply that, a simulation does not have to represent within it the "hardware" that is running the simulation. Second Life does not have to have a large server room appear inside its virtual world. (Nevertheless, there is such a server room running the simulation. )
If the "physical world" of our senses is really virtual, then there is no necessity for the "hardware" it runs on to be in evidence. Yet it is still there, unobservable from within the simulation. If our physical bodies are like avatars in Second Life, we will search in vain within Second Life for the big server room. Yet the source of the simulation must exist.
> Of course one instruction set can simulate another instruction set and the simulation can simulate another instruction set and so on ad infinitum, but this only goes forward. There must be the original physical instruction decoder on which the whole chain is based.
We may have a terminological ambiguity and some resulting confusion. There are two different kinds of simulation.
Lets call Type (1) what you describe here: One instruction set can simulate (or emulate) another one via a process of translation. The decoders for both must be of the same type (if one is physical the other is also). This is true down any chain of decoders, as you suggest.
Type (2) simulation is when an instruction set is used in a more complicated way. It is used to model (via computational geometry) a virtual world, snapshots of which are rendered to create an illusion. In this case, the result of the simulation is of a different type from the input. Objects that appear in a movie are not the same as objects in the theatre, even if a moviegoer might get caught up in a movie and start to believe it is "real". We do not expect objects in the movie to be able to interact with objects in the theatre. So the objects that result from this kind of simulation are of a different type.
The "orignal instruction decoder" must exist. The question is whether it should properly be called "physical". If we take the word "physical" to be what we normally take it for, the kind of stuff that tables and chairs (and our CPUs) are made of, then I argue that the decoder need not be that kind of "stuff".
I am saying that the physical world is a Type (2) simulation not a Type (1) simulation. That is, when we look out at the physical world we form our idea of objects from observing the dancing colors on a kind of 3D display screen, just like a gamer engrossed in their game. We and our bodies are immersed in a 3D movie and do not see the "theatre" it is playing in.
So if objects in our 3D movie are known as "physical" what shall we call the objects in the "theatre"? I used the term "unobservable hardware basis".
Hugh
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:39 GMT
Hi Hugh,
I understand simulation of the two Types (except that I would not say for Type 1 that "the decoders for both must be of the same type (if one is physical the other is also)". Only the root decoder must be physical. All higher-level decoders in the chain can be 'soft'. In fact, this is almost certainly the way all new instruction sets are debugged before committing to physical hardware.
For example, for several years in the 80s I made good money selling simulations of 8051s that ran on 80386s. The 8051s could have simulated another processor, in which case my simulated 8051 could simulate the other processor, and so forth. Only the root decoder (in this case the 80386) need be physical. [By the way, thanks for reminding me of this... one of many things in my past life that I tend to forget!]
And I agree that one can search in vain inside of Second Life for the "big server room".
So I agree that, in your scenario, the "unobservable hardware basis" need not be evident. Yet it must exist. You seem to agree as you say that "The 'original instruction decoder' must exist."
And it must be "hard". That is what I mean by "physical". You seem to be saying that my idea of "hard" is an illusion I've obtained from the virtual world, yet you also seem to agree that the "original instruction decoder" must exist. If this is not in some way isomorphic to "hard" (a.k.a. "physical") then I have no idea what you can mean by this.
Is that what you meant when you said in an earlier comment that "learning and memory do not seem to depend on the physical brain"? But then you asked "where is memory held if not in the brain?" I'm confused here also.
Finally, in your scheme, am "I" also a virtual construction, or am I made of the same "stuff" as the "original instruction decoder"?
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 05:20 GMT
Hi Edwin,
> Only the root decoder must be physical. All higher-level decoders in the chain can be 'soft'.
Yes, I agree with you that at some point as you ascend a Type 1 chain, software might take over the work. So I was wrong (or at the very least misleading) to say "if one is physical the other is also". We should not consider software "physical", so that was a poor word choice...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
> Only the root decoder must be physical. All higher-level decoders in the chain can be 'soft'.
Yes, I agree with you that at some point as you ascend a Type 1 chain, software might take over the work. So I was wrong (or at the very least misleading) to say "if one is physical the other is also". We should not consider software "physical", so that was a poor word choice on my part.
It will probably muddy the waters to try explain what I had in my head (a vague notion anyway) so I will just accept your hard/soft distinction and move on to what I think is the heart of this: That still does not mean the "root decoder" is physical.
> And it must be "hard". That is what I mean by "physical". You seem to be saying that my idea of "hard" is an illusion I've obtained from the virtual world, yet you also seem to agree that the "original instruction decoder" must exist. If this is not in some way isomorphic to "hard" (a.k.a. "physical") then I have no idea what you can mean by this.
Let us consider a situation that is a chain of Type 2 systems and distinguish the various levels of simulation. Level 0 will be the root level, level 1 will be the world simulated above level 0, and so on up.
For a given Level n to exist, then Level n-1 must exist. While a given level would have access to information regarding higher levels, the reverse is not necessarily true. The higher levels might be much simpler systems than the lower ones, just as Second Life is simpler than physical reality. They may have very limited hints as to what kind of systems are actually running them.
I am suggesting that what we take to be "physical" (or "hard", i.e. tables and chairs) may actually be at Level 1, not Level 0. The world of Second Life is then at Level 2.
If our physical world is at Level 1, then, while there must exist a Level 0, I do not want to call it "physical", since that term already denotes things we find at Level 1. In this case, I might call Level 0 "infra-physical", and Level 2 "super-physical", but I am not sure those terms are more helpful than the numbers.
> Is that what you meant when you said in an earlier comment that "learning and memory do not seem to depend on the physical brain"? But then you asked "where is memory held if not in the brain?" I'm confused here also.
The link I gave with the statement about learning and memory went to an article about a dramatic experiment done with flatworms, which have the capacity to regrow their heads. The flatworms were trained, their heads were chopped off, and then, after the heads regrew, they were tested again. They had retained the training. The implication I came to was that the learning must have been stored some place other than the worm's physical brain because that had been removed in between the training and retest.
This I take as evidence that there is a non-brain based, or even non-physical information storage mechanism available for memories and learning.
> Finally, in your scheme, am "I" also a virtual construction, or am I made of the same "stuff" as the "original instruction decoder"?
I think that our consciousness is at a lower level than our bodies. If our physical world is at Level 1, that would place it at Level 0. If our physical world is at (say) level 10, then our consciousness could be at (say) Level 5, so I do not know if it is at Level 0.
Hugh
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 17:02 GMT
Hi Hugh,
First the flatworms. I'm assuming that these tests were not mental, but physical behaviors. Thus, even though the trigger (say a smell or taste) may have been in the head, I would guess that the behavior was mostly "muscle memory". Replace the triggering mechanism and the rest still works. So, while this is truly fascinating, I'm not that surprised, and I would consider this a purely physical storage mechanism.
I would need more solid explanation of "infra-physical" to have even the slightest idea what you're thinking of. You're right that the term alone conveys no more information than the number zero.
Finally you seem to be saying that our bodies are "real" (a.k.a. "hard", "physical") or are you? That is, do we have physical bodies which are "coupled to" virtual effectors, like LCDs over our eyes or special implants in our ears, etc., or are our bodies virtual constructions like the virtual things we believe are real? After I understand how you see our bodies, I'll come back to consciousness.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
Hi Edwin,
> I'm assuming that these tests were not mental, but physical behaviors. Thus, even though the trigger (say a smell or taste) may have been in the head, I would guess that the behavior was mostly "muscle memory".
Right, the test involved sensitivity to light. Evidently flatworms shy away from light and they were taught to tolerate it. I should be clear that the idea that...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
> I'm assuming that these tests were not mental, but physical behaviors. Thus, even though the trigger (say a smell or taste) may have been in the head, I would guess that the behavior was mostly "muscle memory".
Right, the test
involved sensitivity to light. Evidently flatworms shy away from light and they were taught to tolerate it. I should be clear that the idea that the physical does not store memory is my interpretation, as the researchers do devise an alternative explantion. But I think there is a variety of evidence for the existence of memory storage outside of the physical and can provide other examples.
> I would need more solid explanation of "infra-physical" to have even the slightest idea what you're thinking of. You're right that the term alone conveys no more information than the number zero.
Essentially, I am arguing by analogy to our computer hardware and software technology. Our computer systems are often layered, with one type of "world" layered on another to make it easier to implement. I am suggesting a layered computational model for the cosmos that places the physical at a level other than the lowest level. For example:
Level 0: Consciousness
Level 1: Life
Level 2: QM hidden variables
Level 3: physical world (atoms, tables, chairs, etc)
Level 4: Second Life, etc.
Each level of cosmos could have different laws of operation and a different virtual geometry to operate within (analogous to different opcodes and memory architecture).
Because there are specific characteristics regarding information flow between layers (higher layers can't learn much about lower layers), the idea is that the layered model might provide an interpretation of some observations about the world such as the flatworm experiment, or the difficulty of observing the values of QM hidden variables.
The idea of a layered architecture is not new, of course, and the conventional view is probably, for example, that Life is an epi-phenomenon of the physical and that Consciousnes is an emergent phenomenon of Life. I happen to think that the experimental evidence shows otherwise, but once you posit a layered system you can at least pose the question in a (hopefully) clearer way. I will try to write some more on my blog about the model.
> Finally you seem to be saying that our bodies are "real" (a.k.a. "hard", "physical") or are you?
Yes, I think our bodies are at the same level as tables and chairs; made of the same type of "stuff" (molecules and so forth).
> That is, do we have physical bodies which are "coupled to" virtual effectors, like LCDs over our eyes or special implants in our ears, etc., or are our bodies virtual constructions like the virtual things we believe are real?
Virtual constructions at the same level as the "real" things.
> After I understand how you see our bodies, I'll come back to consciousness.
OK, hope this helps.
Hugh
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:12 GMT
Hi Hugh,
I would be interested in other examples of memory storage outside of the physical. I find this hard to believe. I don't consider the flatworm an example of such.
I also have a tough time believing in a 'layered world'. My own intuition and experience tells me that existence is integral or holistic.
It may not be relevant to your scheme but you say "higher layers can't learn much about lower layers". In an ISO seven layer scheme for example I think of the Presentation Level (seven) as being able to display status of lower levels such as physical, data-link, and network layers, whereas the physical layer would have no knowledge of the higher layers. This seems the converse of what you're saying. Similarly, debuggers and disassemblers (for example) can access breakpoint registers, decode global and local descriptor tables, and otherwise poke around in **and interpret** lower level status, whereas the raw machine level instructions don't know beans about email, calendars, spreadsheets, Second Life, etc. Perhaps I'm missing something here.
I agree with your statement of the conventional view, (not with the view itself, only your statement of it) but in my view all of your layers fit into the physical or "real". Of course I don't believe consciousness "emerges" although "degrees of" consciousness are clearly emergent. In my schema, this is where "intelligence" enters the picture with "logic". Here again we get into terminology issues. I'll try to clarify some of this with Rob McEachern below.
It seems pretty clear that we're going in different directions. It all fits into one whole for me, while you prefer layers of separation, which seem artificial to me. Once you posit that our bodies are real/physical, then I see no need for any other layer.
I'll check your blog and I'd be interested in "non-physical memory storage".
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 06:58 GMT
Hi Edwin,
The discussion is very helpful to me in clarifying my thinking, so I would like to address the points you raise. You wrote:
> In an ISO seven layer scheme for example I think of the Presentation Level (seven) as being able to display status of lower levels such as physical, data-link, and network layers, whereas the physical layer would have no knowledge of the higher...
view entire post
Hi Edwin,
The discussion is very helpful to me in clarifying my thinking, so I would like to address the points you raise. You wrote:
> In an ISO seven layer scheme for example I think of the Presentation Level (seven) as being able to display status of lower levels such as physical, data-link, and network layers, whereas the physical layer would have no knowledge of the higher layers. This seems the converse of what you're saying.
Yes, my thinking is opposite yours. Perhaps the difference is that I am describing the layers in a process-oriented way, in other words what happens as they perform their duties, and you are describing the static structure of the information packet. Of course both are valid as descriptions, but in what follows I will try to clarify my process viewpoint.
It is true that higher layers will structure information in their own ways that lower layers may not be able to easily interpret. But notice what happens when the upper layers want to communicate: they appeal to lower layers to get the job done. As part of that, the lower layers can see what they are sending (every bit of it). The lower layers are also party to everything the upper layers receive.
On the other hand, the specifics of the operation of the lower layers (e.g. whether implemented in hardware or software, etc) is invisible to the upper layers. They call the API and it "just happens". So the upper layers "know" less about the lower layers. All they know is the architectural contract the layer provides, not how the service is achieved. They have no way to "see" what the lower layers are doing. This is the asymmetry that is important.
> Similarly, debuggers and disassemblers (for example) can access breakpoint registers, decode global and local descriptor tables, and otherwise poke around in **and interpret** lower level status,...
The same architectural layering principle that applies to software stacks such as ISO also applies to emulation stacks, such as the example of the 80386 emulating an 8051 that you mentioned earlier.
In this case, the layer boundary is at the 8051 instruction set level. Software compiled for the 8051 runs in the higher layer. It has no way of knowing what happens when it issues an 8051 instruction. (It could be processed by a physical 8051, or it might be handled by the 80386 based emulator, or even on the chalkboard of a computer science class.). The results look the same from *within* the upper layer.
On the other hand, the lower layer sees every opcode the upper layer issues, and generates each change in the (virtual or physical) 8051 machine state. So it "knows" a lot more about what is happening up there; it just may have difficulty "understanding" it.
A debugger implemented using 8051 instructions would just be another upper layer process, so it can know the upper layer machine state, but it can't "see" below the architectural boundary. The boundary occurs between a process that issues instructions defined by an architecture and a process that implements those instructions.
> ...whereas the raw machine level instructions don't know beans about email, calendars, spreadsheets, Second Life, etc.
It is true that upper layer software is able to use the machine level instructions in idiosyncratic ways, and the lower level might have a hard time understanding what the upper level is doing. But notice that the lower level can modify the machine state whenever it wants to, not just when the upper level tells it to. Of course, it might technically be breaking its no-side effects clause in the interface contract when it does... but who is to know? This can be very useful to the lower level. For example, it might initialize memory at startup with a program it wants to run. Such agents run in the upper level and can interact with other software there (assuming the architecture defines a process interaction model) and they might tell the lower level a lot about what is going on up there.
> I'll check your blog and I'd be interested in "non-physical memory storage".
I am working on a post for the blog now to describe my conception. Thanks so much for your time in this discussion; it has really helped me get clear what I mean.
Hugh
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thank your for your many very interesting ideas. Here are a few comments.
The real world is not a purely mathematical or informational entity. As I understand your essay, this is one of your main theses. I agree with this contention. For one thing, nearly all of mathematics has no relevance to the physical world. Therefore, some additional principle or fact of...
view entire post
Dear Edwin,
Thank your for your many very interesting ideas. Here are a few comments.
The real world is not a purely mathematical or informational entity. As I understand your essay, this is one of your main theses. I agree with this contention. For one thing, nearly all of mathematics has no relevance to the physical world. Therefore, some additional principle or fact of reality must account for actual existence. Nonetheless, you would, I think, allow that some part of mathematics is at least useful for the understanding of physical existence. Indeed, you present your theory in a mathematical way. What about the mathematics which is not physically applicable? Is that just fictional or made up? Or does it have a different kind of Platonic reality of its own? This point is to the side of your topic, and therefore you did not discuss it, but it would be interesting to know your views about it.
I also have to agree with your insistence that awareness is a genuine feature of reality. Would you consider your position a kind of panpsychism? If awareness is a primordial property of the field, that would seem to imply that awareness, or at least proto-awareness, is everywhere.
I am not clear about the relationship in your theory between this universal aboriginal awareness and the self-interaction which gives rise to the physical world. Are these two separate properties of the field? Two aspects of the same property? Or something else?
Finally, your essay should remind us not to be too quick to dismiss awareness from reality altogether, based on what are thought to be the findings of physics. You propose a new system of physics, based on one field. Even those who accept some other system--such as the hundreds of fields, which you attribute to Susskind--will have to admit the force of your critique of the current state of knowledge (or current state of ignorance and belief). Given this not very satisfactory situation, do we really have adequate reason to suppose that awareness, consciousness, and thinking are something other than the way they present themselves to us?
Laurence Hitterdale
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Laurence Hitterdale replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Not sure why the system posted my comments (immediately above) as anonymous. However, I signed on again, and this should attach my name to the post.
Thanks.
Laurence Hitterdale
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
Dear Laurence,
Thanks for your comment and questions. As I noted on your page, you handle "bit as fundamental" and "universe as computer" so masterfully that the topic should be closed! Nevertheless, if you'd like to see how fascinating the "other side" can be, I recommend Hugh Matlock's essay [see comment above yours.]
You point out a little-noted fact, that "nearly all of...
view entire post
Dear Laurence,
Thanks for your comment and questions. As I noted on your page, you handle "bit as fundamental" and "universe as computer" so masterfully that the topic should be closed! Nevertheless, if you'd like to see how fascinating the "other side" can be, I recommend Hugh Matlock's essay [see comment above yours.]
You point out a little-noted fact, that "nearly all of mathematics has no relevance to the physical world" and conclude "therefore some additional fact of reality must account for actual existence." Then you ask if I agree that math is useful for understanding physical existence, and whether it does not have a Platonic reality of its own, noting that I begin with an equation...
My basic assumption is that the universe either began as ONE thing, from which ALL evolved, or it may as well of been created with billions of things. Once we assume more than one thing, why stop at two? And the Platonic reality of math is more than ONE thing. But further, I find that the existence of physical thresholds (which falls out of the Master equation with the quantum of action) leads to natural binary states and physical continuity (assumed in the Master equation) that leads to 'circuitry' or connections between such states that easily implement logical circuits AND, OR, XOR (COMPARE) and that such gates easily implement ADD and SUBTRACT circuitry and, as noted in Hugh Matlock's comment above, floating-point computation. Kronecker famously said "God made the integers, all else is the work of man." Since the integers derive from simple counter circuits (which can be implemented in DNA, silicon, or neurons, etc.) I find that math is a "side effect" of physical reality. In other words, physical reality instantiates 'logic', probably as a necessary consequence of self-consistent existence, and physical logic leads straight-forwardly to counters, natural numbers, and all of math. There is no reason to assume another Platonic 'realm'. I suspect this is just part of the confusion that generally surrounds consciousness.
But math circuitry, like logical circuitry, leads to language, and just as natural language can produce fiction having only remote ties to reality, mathematical language can be untied from reality. As you note, this is why we cannot conclude that physical reality derives from math, because why just "some" math and not "all" math?
You also agree that "awareness is a genuine feature of reality." You ask whether I would consider my position a kind of panpsychism. I guess I'd have to say it is a "kind of" panpsychism, although, as I understand it, panpsychism generally ignores relations to physical reality. So I think I'm more 'nuanced' than panpsychism, and, not having any conjecture about the 'cause' of physical reality, I leave the door open to a "higher cause".
You further ask whether the universal aboriginal awareness and the self-interaction which gives rise to the physical world are two separate properties of the field or two aspects of the same property, or something else. First, I should note that the self-interaction does not "give rise to the physical world". I don't know what gave rise to the physical world, but I'm convinced that those who believe that mathematics (or information) can or did give rise to the physical world are badly mistaken. But since we find ourselves in (and are directly aware of) a physical world, I start with the simplest possible world, one field, and conclude that, to evolve, it could only interact with itself. There was simply nothing else to interact with!
And I find this reasonably implies that to interact with itself the field must have "some" awareness of itself. I would probably not insist on this aspect (?) except for the fact that I have awareness of myself, and based on experience and on reasonably expert awareness of computers and biology, I don't think my awareness is an artifact. Therefore I conclude its primordial. With this assumption I find that everything I know of could reasonably have evolved from the one aboriginal field. What brought that field into existence is an ultimate mystery and will certainly never be "logically" explained.
Your final question, whether awareness, consciousness, and thinking are something other than the way they present themselves to us, is the essence of Korzybski's dictum. They *are* the territory.
Thanks again Laurence, for your essay and for your comment. I noted on your page weeks ago that your essay was worth a 10 but I didn't score it at the time. I've just remedied that.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 20:57 GMT
Laurence, my mistake. Upon attempting to rate you, I find that I already did so.
Laurence Hitterdale replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your ideas further. I now see that you advocate a strong monism, to use a term from the history of philosophy. I am not fully convinced by your arguments. One concern is whether all mathematics and logic are also based on the One Existence, just as we ourselves and the physical world are so based. Also, the details of your system will be essential to its viability. The world around us is variegated and plural. Are all those things somehow just One Thing, or at least somehow rooted in One Thing? To argue for an answer "Yes" two lines of thought are necessary: first, explaining how the many come from the One; and second, showing that this monistic account is better than alternative explanations. As far as this contest goes, I will have to leave it at that, because the contest opens many other discussions. However, I appreciate the opportunity to become acquainted with your thinking. Perhaps I can learn more about it later in another discussion.
Laurence Hitterdale
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Laurence,
You are more familiar with the fine points of philosophy than I, but Monism and panpsychism both seem near to what I hypothesize.
Yes, of course the details of the system are essential to its viability. That is and has been my approach. It is not difficult to show that Newton's gravity and general relativity both can be derived from the master equation, and similarly a generalized form of Hesisenberg's uncertainty principle and a derivation of quantum mechanics as presented in my previous essay. I believe that I have a good chance of computing the masses of the known particles from basic principles, in contrast with the Standard Model. But my main focus is on the numerous anomalies that do not fit into any current theory of physics. I believe that most of these are explained by the non-linear gravitational field.
As for math and logic, I spent decades working as a logic designer and am quite satisfied that logic and math both are derivative. But, as Smolin points out, belief in a Platonic realm of math is essentially religious, and so I do not expect to sway any believers.
So, I am well along the process of explaining how the many come from the One, but I am unsure how to show this is 'better' than alternatives, other than to show that it explains the anomalies that others do not.
Thanks for reading, and commenting, and I would be happy to continue this in a later discussion.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
Anthony DiCarlo wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT
Edwin,
OK, so the "existence" and "changes" in this "self field" constitute what? Measures? ...they better be .... and .... then your arguments draw on other's measured data to confirm or deny your drawn conclusions. You therefore remove yourself from measures of your "self" field changes and revert to quoting data external to that measured by the "self."
That sounds like a...
view entire post
Edwin,
OK, so the "existence" and "changes" in this "self field" constitute what? Measures? ...they better be .... and .... then your arguments draw on other's measured data to confirm or deny your drawn conclusions. You therefore remove yourself from measures of your "self" field changes and revert to quoting data external to that measured by the "self."
That sounds like a reductionist requirement of holistic to obtain the measured definition of ones self? If your single field explains everything from inside out, why does it require an outside -> in confirmation?
The reason may be due to our measured reality requiring this confirmation from others, and, it is highly likely that others have an alternate approach to your self field and can match your measurable results in anything you will ever predict. This implies that many relevant, coherent, calculable paths may lead to your very same conclusions .... so who is correct?
Until science finds the correct "context" to apply all we measure, natural breaks in coherent knowledge will inevitably result, because the next step in a GUT correlation requires a deeper understanding of the single context that all measured science operates under. This implies that everyone can be correct when viewing information in their own sub-context, and, when the universal context is eventually found and accepted, all sub-contexts can be projected onto it and commonalities will appear with differences. This implies that multi-universe theory may be one man's way of saying each of us has our own measured universe with all sub-contexts merging into the single context supporting "life" as the center of creation. Holonomic physics/CFT/Shape Dynamics/etc., your "self" field/ all may simply point to being capable of merging into a much deeper, unique context.
It would then appear that unification requires context definition and your self field doesn't seem to fit the entire bill when it comes down to the "self" having to be "measured" by others. We know that the measurers HAVE to interject in the results of the measure and add their own personal sub-context bias.
Best regards,
Tony
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
Dear Anthony,
I'll try to respond to your comment as I interpret it. I've found in the past that even those who hold a similar view of consciousness typically require extended effort to harmonize vocabulary, since most relevant words are very fuzzy.
You ask what "existence" and "changes" in the "self field" constitute, and conclude they better be measures. I'm confused right off...
view entire post
Dear Anthony,
I'll try to respond to your comment as I interpret it. I've found in the past that even those who hold a similar view of consciousness typically require extended effort to harmonize vocabulary, since most relevant words are very fuzzy.
You ask what "existence" and "changes" in the "self field" constitute, and conclude they better be measures. I'm confused right off the bat, but if you're saying that the theory needs to agree with others' measured data, that is certainly true. But then you seem to imply that I am after a "measured definition of one's self". This is not the way I conceive of it. I am subjectively aware of myself and this does not require either measurement or definition. Only objective "things" require measurement definition.
And although I tend to view it, as a physicist, as the gravitational field, which possesses an inherent, if only primordial, self-awareness, it is just as valid for you to consider it a 'self' field possessing gravitational properties. But only the gravitational properties are measurable.
As for a single field explaining everything, my hypothesis is that initially only one "thing" exists, the field. There is no 'outside' or 'inside'. As it evolves, symmetry breaks, and 'local' and 'global' acquire meaning. Any attempt to describe a holistic 'system' has to start somewhere, but this should be arbitrary, since it all must tie together.
And yes, measured reality is required for confirmation from others, as they tend to be unenlightened and will not simply take my word for it! And, with the exception of numerous anomalies that exist, other theories can and do match my measurable results. Currently, I believe only my theory explains numerous anomalies, but this is only qualitative, so far, and I'm hoping my new n-GEM technique produces quantitative agreement. You ask "who is correct" and I suggest that how anomalies are handled will be a good test of this.
You make some assumptions about science finding the correct "context" that indicates you've put a lot of thought into this. I'm sure I'm missing some of the subtleties of your idea. So I'll make two responses that may be off the mark. Currently Multiverses are based on certain ideas that I think I will be able to prove wrong, but I'm not sure this is related to your statement. And when you say the "self field doesn't seem to fit the entire bill when it comes down to "self" being measured by "others", you lose me. I am subjectively self-aware *and* objectively aware of others. These will, in my opinion, never fit into a scheme of the type you seem to be proposing.
If I've completely misinterpreted your comment, please try to clarify my mistakes. And my sincere thanks for reading my essay and trying to formulate the problems as you see them. I appreciate it.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Anonymous wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
Edwin, first I want to thank your for your open reply. Here are a couple replys to your questions.
You state: "I am subjectively aware of myself and this does not require either measurement or definition."
I can assure you that your subjective view of your "self" was developed by ALL the measurable information your personal biology obtained throughout your entire life. Remove all of...
view entire post
Edwin, first I want to thank your for your open reply. Here are a couple replys to your questions.
You state: "I am subjectively aware of myself and this does not require either measurement or definition."
I can assure you that your subjective view of your "self" was developed by ALL the measurable information your personal biology obtained throughout your entire life. Remove all of this information and I believe I can say with high confidence that this "subjective self" you believe is present will no longer be capable of being defined. ALL your past, physical information sets the boundaries of your current state of "subjectiveness." This implies that your subjective self is built on your history of collected, measurable, information. So when you say "objective" and "subjective" you simply refer to information on the outer surface (current physical measures), and, information locked inside the boundary of this surface (the entire history of information alluded to above - the information that fills the "volume" in your life). Therefore, your subjective awareness takes root in all your past physical endevours and is not a seperate part .... like saying the leaf does not partake in the life of a tree as part of a whole -or- visa versa..... "sustaining a life" being the context here.
Also, you have stated: "And although I tend to view it, as a physicist, as the gravitational field, which possesses an inherent, if only primordial, self-awareness, it is just as valid for you to consider it a 'self' field possessing gravitational properties. But only the gravitational properties are measurable. "
Well, I too am a physicist, however, I also consider our conciousness as supplying a point symmetry to do all its analysis of information - this implies we measure everything as a geometric product - agreement and uncertainty in agreement - dot and curl... including our own "self measurement." Gravity may supply the measurable gauge to the self, however, we can only measure the differences within the gauge and this comes with a dot and curl value, and, this again may go back to requiring more then just the self .... to define the self....
You also stated" As for a single field explaining everything, my hypothesis is that initially only one "thing" exists, the field. There is no 'outside' or 'inside'. As it evolves, symmetry breaks, and 'local' and 'global' acquire meaning. Any attempt to describe a holistic 'system' has to start somewhere, but this should be arbitrary, since it all must tie together."
While there may have only been "1" thing at the very beginning of time, we are now immersed in times where there are MANY physically separated "selfs." In the beginning everything may have been "self parallel" and thus only a dot product solution to everything, all self's completely aligned (an incubation, accelerating growth period - like individual spin in a ferromagnet state) .. until a curl (asymmetry) sets in (birth).... increased temperature for the ferromagnetic to demagnetize .... and measured differences (curls) exist between all the "selfs." The "self's" part like the tribes of self's in ancient times. (a GUT on "self's" would need to explain measured past civilation movements also ... and markets... etc)
On a final note you stated: "You make some assumptions about science finding the correct "context" that indicates you've put a lot of thought into this."
Well, I like to "think" I put more then thoughts into it ... I like to think I put ALL measures (past and present) we make, and can potentially make, into it. This therefore creats a self that goes from the inner cell, beyond the cell wall out the skin, through the ecosystem and into the solar system (as a NASA scientist you know how we collect information here in the solar system)... and intimately connected out to the far reaches of the universe. If the real, physically measurable descriptions of this instantaneous "self" fosters many testable paths to it's description .... imagine what can transpire when we figure out that it is really a part of the "measurable self" that we physically describe with each valid GUT description (speak of potentially new understandings of the genomes measurable information structure (and when deemed and proven measurable .... becomes manipulative for cures to every physical ailments known and unknown to man)! Now "that" would truely be a Grand theory...... A Measurable Self Physics having the subjective part removed.
Best regards,
Tony
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
Tony,
Thanks for your replies. You say "I can assure you... [that if you remove your personal biologically obtained information] this "subjective self" you believe is present will no longer be capable of being defined." While I agree with you (close to) 100% I would say you're focused on my self-identity, i.e., myself and this body with its particular history. But, if the situation is as...
view entire post
Tony,
Thanks for your replies. You say "I can assure you... [that if you remove your personal biologically obtained information] this "subjective self" you believe is present will no longer be capable of being defined." While I agree with you (close to) 100% I would say you're focused on my self-identity, i.e., myself and this body with its particular history. But, if the situation is as I hypothesize, the basic awareness is fundamental to existence and, in that sense is the same awareness that you have. The individual biological details aren't that significant. And there are states of awareness (I refer to these as 'topological') in which the 'metric' overlay that is learned in infancy is suppressed and the 'connectedness' mode of awareness (pre-metric awareness) is dominant. While one can never completely abolish the particular history, I think it's much less relevant to this mode of awareness than you seem to.
Mark Feeley commented above: "You make a sensible assertion that, for example, there is a sense in which we can say gravity is "aware" and proceed very carefully from there. If you assume there is only one real field the argument is even simpler: if there is only one field, then you (or anyone else) are a manifestation of that field, and combined with the apparent evidence that you are aware, you are quite logically led to a conclusion that the field is in some way aware."
So when your say my "subjective awareness... is not a separate part", I never considered such awareness "a separate part". That is your conception. If I had to attach a label, I would probably call it an 'aspect' of the field, inseparable from the field.
I'm not sure how to respond to your "gravity may supply the measurable gauge to the self" and the conclusion "requiring more than just the self... to define the self...". I'm not interested in "defining the self". I experience the self. That's the basic territory. Definitions are a map or overlay on the territory.
And yes, while there may have been only "1" thing at the very beginning of time, obviously there are MANY physically separated biological 'self's today. But, if these are like vortices in an ocean, they do not stop being ocean, they simply represent locally concentrated or constrained activities, or behaviors. My interest is in explaining the physical evolution from the initial "1" to the current MANY. You seem to think this implies a need to explain tribes and markets and other socio-phenomena. On the one hand these seem self-evident and, on the other hand not strictly physics. I've stated that my equations relate to physical material (fields) and interactions, not the awareness or will aspects of the field, which I claim are not representable by equations (except perhaps in some statistical model.)
Your description of your ideal GUT is pretty much that which I have in mind, except that I'm sure we are not using the same vocabulary when you say "having the subjective part removed". This relates to my first paragraph above. Remove the local experience, the field awareness is still there, it just lacks the "information" to interpret "things" it is aware of.
I think we're closer than you think.
Anyway I really do appreciate your perspective, and agree with almost all of it. But I don't think we conceive of awareness in the same way.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Anthony DiCarlo replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 17:51 GMT
Edwin,
I agree with your statement: "I think we're closer than you think."
What I always attempt to do is pick up a ruler and time clock to "measure" just how close we are because it is enevidable that we all "think" differently and it is he who actually predicts physical measures that take the podeum (and for good reason - we can then better mankind with new inventions). If...
view entire post
Edwin,
I agree with your statement: "I think we're closer than you think."
What I always attempt to do is pick up a ruler and time clock to "measure" just how close we are because it is enevidable that we all "think" differently and it is he who actually predicts physical measures that take the podeum (and for good reason - we can then better mankind with new inventions). If "awareness" can't be physically measured, then what good can it do? If you say it apprpriates our existence to drive physical change (for example) then why is it not measurable?... we can measure all information received from our 5 physical senses that feed our state of conciousness. Adding a physical sense of awareness may be what is required to take all information entering our 5 senses and "coherently" store it as memory (your pre-metric awareness being like the coherent structure). If I call a "sense of awareness" as akin to a modeled point symmetry that derives the physical property of "awareness" from information derived from space-time splits (the geometric product - I was a student of David Hestenes) then I have information I can measure that "appropriates my physically derived awareness." This implies "awareness" measures in life to be accumulative. I am more aware today then I was yesterday... on multiple fronts.
If you were asked to recall your earliest memories you can likely back track through a past time series of self experienced events ... to a point in time where memory no longer serves your inquiries to draw information. Were you "not" aware proir to this? (if you say you were aware then why can't you recall any events prior) -or- was your awareness today built from all the information you gathered since your first memories - when you first became aware? Optical vision is not present in the womb, and, takes practice to master when we are born ... as does the sense of balance, etc., why not also a sense of awareness that is accumulated through life?
This may be where we disconnect.... you treat awareness as a self inflicted thing that was always present ... I treat awareness as a learned, accumulated trait that requires coherent information accumulation over time.
Regards,
Tony
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 20:53 GMT
Tony,
In general, of course, I agree with your stance on measurement. And I'm glad you asked "what good can it do?" and not "what good can it be?". You give the example of new inventions. As an inventor (my bio is out of date, I now have 39 patents) I can easily say that my awareness, measurable or not, is responsible for every one of my inventions. Or better, that I would not have...
view entire post
Tony,
In general, of course, I agree with your stance on measurement. And I'm glad you asked "what good can it do?" and not "what good can it be?". You give the example of new inventions. As an inventor (my bio is out of date, I now have 39 patents) I can easily say that my awareness, measurable or not, is responsible for every one of my inventions. Or better, that I would not have invented anything without being aware. So by your measure awareness "does good". Rob below remarked on awareness of pain as a danger response system. That is good. Obviously there are numerous such examples.
I don't have an answer for everything. You postulate that awareness is cumulative. "I am more aware today than I was yesterday... on multiple fronts." I don't know whether this is true or not. I tend to know more on a daily basis, but I also forget more. I lived a very productive life for at least four decades and am often surprised to realize that I forgot about major events and projects, not having thought about them for years. This mixes up consciousness and logic, which leads to thoughts, ideas, models, memories of the past, and projections into the future, while awareness is of NOW. So I haven't resolved that issue in my mind. You're probably right.
But to return to "measure". The C-field (which manifests awareness) is measurable, at a point in time, but I don't think this correlates with awareness per se. Yet it may, I don't know.
And this brings me to your point about recalling earliest memories. I don't know if my distinction between 'metric awareness' and 'topological awareness' makes sense to you, but it is key to my theory. Memories are awareness of stored information [see my many other comments about information], and you ask, reasonably, what were you aware of before certain types of information were received (say optical). It is largely from optical (and auditory and touch) that we learn to impose a metric overlay on our awareness (actually on our neural models). After this is firmly in place most of us forget that there was an earlier form of awareness or connectedness with everything. An extremely common first reaction to psychedelics is "how could I have forgotten this?" That, in my theory, comes from changing the thresholds that "maintain" the metric maps. If you have not read Jill Bolte Taylor's account of her stroke, [My Stroke of Insight], I strongly urge you to do so. It may go a long way toward addressing some of your questions. William James "Varieties of Religious Experience" also addresses such 'topological' awareness.
So awareness of stored information probably drives most of your activities today. I believe you were also aware in the womb where it was biologically stored information that drove your (growing) activity. If one can't recall any of this, one must either take the word of those who've experienced such recall, or simply reject it.
Your final paragraph really oversimplifies what is actually a very complex situation. But our comments illustrate how hard it is to come to grips with these ideas of awareness [a regression in itself].
Thanks for making the effort to make these points. I've enjoyed it very much.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Anthony DiCarlo replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:01 GMT
Edwin,
First, I must say that I greatly enjoy our chats. I still have a few comments, and, I hope I'm not becomming a pest!
You state: "If one can't recall any of this, one must either take the word of those who've experienced such recall, or simply reject it."
Why do either? Why you can't simply take it for what it is? - this is the information Edwin has at his recall - use just this information. What this information appears to be is a series of images of events that we have nestled away in our thoughts. If GUT is to model Edwins current information, then it best explain all the information Edwin can recall, right?
Anyway, I have read Jill Bolte Taylor's account of her stroke (as you had suggested on your comment of my FQXI article two seasons ago http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/891 ). However, I also was present with someone having a massive, right side of the brain, stroke and took out my meter stick and time clock. The information on how image data was now being stored, post stroke, resembled the information half spaces of anti-Desitter. This is what lead me to the holographic basis for our conciousness storing information (thus the point symmetry conciousness that looks out and measures a geometric product space - ie., we physically act as space-time splitters!)
Anyway - It's been a pleasure!
Tony DiCarlo
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:29 GMT
Tony,
Yes, it has been a pleasure! I never expect to win these FQXi contests -- I would be far more conservative if I were trying to win. In fact, it was almost a foregone conclusion that fashionable 'quantum information' essays would be the winners. But the comments and conversations are priceless. The fact that everyone has their own theory and cannot be budged therefrom does not prevent comparisons, questions, clarifications and the stimulation of new ideas. It is a very special community.
Thank you very much.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 19:56 GMT
Edwin,
In regards to your on-going discussion concerning "awareness", it is important to remember that "self-awareness" and "consciousness" are not the same thing, even though most people treat them as such. "Self-awareness" is neither hard to explain, nor hard to implement. The same cannot be said of "consciousness". My house has a limited form of self-awareness. So does my car. My house is aware of itself filling with smoke. I know this to be true, because it sounds an alarm. Similarly, my car is aware of keys being left in the ignition, and doors being left ajar.
But consciousness is another matter. Consciousness is about *how* a system experiences itself, not *if* a system experiences itself, as in the examples given above. The latter can often be verified by an external observer. The former cannot.
Although it is a bit oversimplified, consciousness might be considered to be a second-order effect of first-order self-awareness; how does a system "feel about" or "experience" its own self-awareness. Pain is part of a damage detection system, but how does the system feel or experience that pain.
The real question is not if a system can experience things like pain and color, but do they experience it the same way that I do. Or that you do.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 02:43 GMT
Hi Rob,
Thanks for jumping back in. Everyone has their own interpretation of the vocabulary of consciousness. Of course in most situations the only thing that matters is whether the parties can agree on the meanings of their words.
I think it's a little different when one is dealing with a theory of consciousness and equations relating it physical reality. In this case it's not...
view entire post
Hi Rob,
Thanks for jumping back in. Everyone has their own interpretation of the vocabulary of consciousness. Of course in most situations the only thing that matters is whether the parties can agree on the meanings of their words.
I think it's a little different when one is dealing with a theory of consciousness and equations relating it physical reality. In this case it's not just agreement, but one definition or interpretation may be compatible with theory and another may not be.
For example I define 'consciousness' as 'awareness plus volition', where volition is synonymous with will. This definition includes both 'self-awareness' (subjectivity) and 'awareness-of-other' (objectivity). And I do think it's hard to explain and tend to doubt that it can be implemented.
To a trivial degree, by stating that the primordial field possesses the attribute or aspect of awareness, and claiming that everything evolved from this field, I lay myself open to the claim that everything may be said to "be aware". But that's a meaningless tautology. There is a threshold below which to say something is "aware" is silly.
In my opinion, your house is not aware (i.e., it falls below the threshold). Cybernetic feedback of temperature or smoke density is not an example of "awareness", just physical sensing and response. And even if the 'smoke sensor' was aware, I would not identify it with the house. The car example might be closer, but still no cigar.
My reasons for saying this are based on the hypothesis that the C-field, or local gravitomagnetic field is the key physical phenomenon (substance, agency, ??) that manifests awareness, and it does so according to the nonlinear reality approximated by the C-field equation (see essay). And the C-field equation relates changes in the C-field (which correlate with changes in awareness) to mass current density or momentum density. And the effect of the C-field is dynamic, in the sense that the C-field has no effect on static phenomena (momentum equals zero). Nor does it sense static phenomena. This is key. An analysis of living cells or monkeys or humans versus rocks or houses depends on this [in my theory]. For example a static electric potential, such as the output from a thermostat, has no momentum, hence is effectively "invisible" to the C-field, i.e., the C-field is unaware of it (unconscious of it).
But, one might object, electrons have mass and momentum. That's true. But the ions that flow in neurons are approximately 100,000 times more massive than electrons, thus, for a given velocity, the C-field is 100,000 times "more aware" of the ions than of the electrons.
And vesicles that flow across synaptic gaps in the brain are typically millions of times more massive than ions, or hundreds of billions of times more massive than electrons. And there are trillions of synapses in the brain, with (I'm not sure how many) vesicles flowing across a typical synapse.
So the reason you spend your time earning money to eat is to keep these flows going in your brain (and in your cells, and in your blood, and the associated C-fields maintain, focus, and control such flows (although most of the flow is constrained by the biological structures -- neurons, arteries, veins, etc. that your body intelligently grew into place.)
Recall that I define "intelligence" as consciousness plus logic, which I haven't even touched on here.
My point is twofold. First, in the absence of the theory, the only thing necessary to discuss consciousness is that both parties agree on the terms they use. But when there is a theory, the definitions have to be compatible with the theory. Second, the above comment is not even the tip of the iceberg with respect to my theory. There are many other aspects of consciousness that make sense in my theory that, as far as I know, are unexplained otherwise. And the theory is designed to describe everything we know about the physical world AND to be fully compatible with subjective experience.
This, to me, is worth insisting on which definitions apply.
With best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 12:13 GMT
Edwin,
"I define 'consciousness' as 'awareness plus volition', where volition is synonymous with will"
"Cybernetic feedback of temperature or smoke density is not an example of "awareness", just physical sensing and response. "
I agree with your statement about definitions, but a problem remains. 'self-awareness' (subjectivity) and 'awareness-of-other' (objectivity) plus volition etc., all can be described in terms of information transfers and processing. But the way in which I actually experience them internally, cannot. For example, I can readily imagine a being that looks and acts like a human, but experiences itself as an information processing machine. It would be aware of the internal message from the hand on the hot stove (as I am aware of the receipt of an external sound), informing it that the hand was burning. It would be aware of the resulting messages to the arm, to pull the hand off, and aware of the messages to the muscles of the face, causing it to grimace and scream. It would be aware of all the algorithms employed to process this sensory information into responses. But that is nothing like my internal experience of the same external experience. I feel pain. My internal feeling per se, is experienced in a manner that is completely divorced from information processing, sensing and response. In other words, I am "conscious" of an experience, but not of any of the processing from which that experience seems to be constructed. As described in my book "Human and Machine Intelligence", I can imagine how to construct the latter. But not the former.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:54 GMT
Edwin,
Since my previous post, I have conducted my usual week-day observance of "Closer-to-Truth", on the local public television station. Today's episode was about consciousness, and one of the participants used a word, that I should have used in my previous post. So I will use it here. "Seeming" is the word.
As far back as Plato's Socratic dialogues, it has been apparent that a...
view entire post
Edwin,
Since my previous post, I have conducted my usual week-day observance of "Closer-to-Truth", on the local public television station. Today's episode was about consciousness, and one of the participants used a word, that I should have used in my previous post. So I will use it here. "Seeming" is the word.
As far back as Plato's Socratic dialogues, it has been apparent that a distinction can be made between "being" and "seeming"; an entity can "be" one thing, but seem to be something else to an external observer. Much more interestingly, is the case of human consciousness, in which, to myself, I appear to be one thing, but seem to be something quite different.
I can imagine building an intelligent machine that has sensory awareness (both external and internal state sensing), information processes that produce responses to those sensory inputs, volition etc. I can imagine that it could be aware of the nature of its "being", and that it would seem to itself that it was such a being. But that is absolutely not how I seem to be to myself. I believe I too must "be" such a being, I'm a materialist, but I do not "seem" to be such a being.
How can the being and seeming be reconciled.
Non-materialists claim that the seeming is caused by a soul.
Many materialists, like Roger Penrose, believe that the seeming is caused by an undiscovered physical phenomenon, analogous to the discovery of atomic fusion, to explain the sun's energy output over time-spans too long to be explained by chemical processes.
I believe seeming to be caused by an undiscovered information processing technique, analogous to the discovery of FM signaling; when first proposed, it was dismissed as impossible, just as Lord Kelvin dismissed geologist's estimates of the sun's age.
I know how to build machines that sense red light in the same manner that the human eye does. And I can imagine building one that was aware or itself as "being" just such a machine. But I have yet to imagine how it could "seem to be" anything else, to itself; it would experience "red", but not the the way I "seem" to experience it.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 21:25 GMT
Rob,
You claim that I say "'self-awareness' (subjectivity) and 'awareness-of-other' (objectivity) plus volition etc., all can be described in terms of information transfers and processing." Then you state: "But the way in which I actually experience them internally, cannot."
No. I do NOT say that. [And I'm rather surprised that you think I did; it illustrates how hard it is to get...
view entire post
Rob,
You claim that I say "'self-awareness' (subjectivity) and 'awareness-of-other' (objectivity) plus volition etc., all can be described in terms of information transfers and processing." Then you state: "But the way in which I actually experience them internally, cannot."
No. I do NOT say that. [And I'm rather surprised that you think I did; it illustrates how hard it is to get past one's own terminology. I assume that you read my words and apply your interpretations, coming to this wrong conclusion.]
I define 'consciousness' as 'awareness plus volition', where volition is synonymous with will. I define 'intelligence' as 'consciousness plus logic' and in my essays and in many comments scattered throughout this contest I specifically note that it is the existence of the energy threshold that provides the binary basis of information, and the crossing of this threshold and changes ('in-forms') a structure, resulting in stored information. And connected thresholds result in logic circuitry that processes information. Without this "logic" there is no information processing. -- Yet awareness exists without either! -- This is key. It is, as my previous comment discussed, the sensing of momentum density. Only when the mass flows are structured by neural (logic) circuitry does it become intelligent thought/thinking, and offer a means to become aware of the past and project the future. Awareness is always of NOW. If, right now, your logic circuitry is accessing info about the past, then you are now aware of the past, etc.
So most of your long paragraph seems to focus exactly on what I mean by awareness. It seems hard for many to make this distinction between internal experience of external stimuli, probably because they know so much about the mechanics of processing the information received from the stimulus. You obviously can. Many just assume that the high order of complexity "leads to" awareness, that is, awareness 'emerges from' the complex circuitry. I say it does not. As a robot designer [in the past] and theorist, I fully agree with your statement about how one can construct the "intelligent" behavior from logic, but not the awareness.
If you realize that you've attributed to me a very incorrect statement, I think you'll see that we are very much in agreement. It may require an effort to adjust your terminology, probably that used in your book, to my interpretations.
Because your next comment is a big change of topic that looks quite interesting, I'll post this response and then spent some time thinking about the next one.
By the way, I've had your book on my stack for a while, unfortunately the stack keeps growing!
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 23:27 GMT
Rob,
That's an interesting one to respond to: 'Being' versus 'Seeming'.
You say "I'm a materialist, but I do not "seem" to be such a being." In your previous comment you remarked you could imagine how to construct automata, but not aware automata [I'm paraphrasing.]
I think your definition of "material" is too constrained. Along with many others, I view the gravitational...
view entire post
Rob,
That's an interesting one to respond to: 'Being' versus 'Seeming'.
You say "I'm a materialist, but I do not "seem" to be such a being." In your previous comment you remarked you could imagine how to construct automata, but not aware automata [I'm paraphrasing.]
I think your definition of "material" is too constrained. Along with many others, I view the gravitational field as "material". As Ohanian and Ruffini say in "Gravitation and Spacetime, 2nd Ed.": "the gravitational field may be regarded as the material medium sought by Newton; the field is material because it possesses an energy density." And as Weinberg notes in "Gravitation and Cosmology" -- "the geometric interpretation of the theory of gravity has dwindled to a mere analogy."
But you do not understand how gravity "pulls" on other mass. And you do not understand how gravity is "aware of" other mass. I contend that these mysterious aspects, plus the concept of energy/mass, pretty well define gravity. And gravity self-gravitates. And I am aware of gravity and of myself. And my theory explains how gravity evolved from an initial 'pure' symmetry to our current world, which is a complex manifestation of the original material substance.
It seems to me you have several choices:
1) enlarge your concept of material to include awareness and volition (like gravitational attraction).
2) hypothesize another "field" to explain awareness.
3) believe the conventional view that awareness emerges from complex automata (and hence has no fundamental reality, only artificial).
4) believe in some "other" realm, such as Platonists do [Penrose is a Platonist].
My bias is to prefer ONE thing to two or many things. And the one gravity field seems to work. I don't think the other ideas work, or if they do, I find them "ugly". It's a personal preference, but, as I've indicated above, my theory explains (qualitatively) anomalies in (material) physics that no one else explains.
I've often used the example in your last paragraph (seeing 'red') to explain to others what I mean by awareness.
I think you are mistaken in your belief that some undiscovered info processing will "explain" awareness, just as no undiscovered geometry will "explain" how gravity 'pulls'. It 'describes' at best.
Although I believe everyone began in the womb with what I refer to as topological awareness, it is clear that most have no recollection of such and have effectively lost this mode of awareness. Psychedelics, strokes, and religious experiences restore this mode, temporarily. If none of these apply to you, then you will probably deny this fundamental mode of awareness even exists. I view such experience as a surefire way to put ideas of algorithms or mechanical explanations of awareness to bed. And I consider my theory a 'materialist' theory of physics, based on the two things I directly and immediately experience: gravity and awareness. Almost everything else is abstraction and idea, which requires working logic circuits to experience.
While I've been beating this drum for years, it's good that FQXi has finally come up with a topic that causes numerous people to see that consciousness must be discussed in any fundamental theory of information.
Thanks again for your always stimulating comments.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 23:35 GMT
Edwin,
I was not claiming that you said that. Language is ambiguous, sorry about that. I was attempting to present MY claim, in the context of what you said. After watching the "closer to truth" episode, I realized there was a better way of stating my point, which is why I made the second post.
"So most of your long paragraph seems to focus exactly on what I mean by awareness", I agree, but as I stated, awareness of "being", at least to me (and many philosophers), offers no explanation of awareness of "seeming".
I agree that we are very much in agreement. But at the same time, the differences are significant. For example, you said that, from your perspective, "your next comment is a big change of topic", but from my perspective, it is exactly the same topic; I was merely attempting to say that the TV episode triggered my reflection, that the distinction between "being" and "seeming", is the best, most concise language, that I have yet encountered, to point out just what that topic is all about. I had encountered it many times before, but forgot about just how interesting the point is. As one of the episode's participants put it, "seeming" is our only real direct experience, "I seem to think, therefore I do", "being" is "merely" an inference about what causes the seeming. You can infer that a brain caused it, or you can infer that a soul caused it. But in any case, it *always* seems that you are exactly what you seem to be.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 23:54 GMT
Edwin,
We are crossing paths in our posts.
"I think you are mistaken in your belief that some undiscovered info processing will "explain" awareness"; as I said, although we agree about many thing, differences exist.
Keep in mind that my conception of important "undiscovered info processing" are ones, like FM, that explicitly exploit a priori knowledge. Obviously, such a process cannot be accomplished until the required info becomes a priori. It goes back to another ancient debate, that appears in Plato; How can you find something when you don't even know what you are looking for?" But merely asking that question seems (there is that word again) to imply that once you do know what you ought to be looking for, you ought to be able to do a better job of finding it.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 01:04 GMT
Rob,
Yes, language is ambiguous. As for awareness of "being" versus "seeming", I understand what you're saying (I think) but this ambiguity is built into language, via the abstraction of our models -- we simply cannot model "seeming".
My comment about "changes of topic" was made before I studied your comment. I agree it's not a big change of topic. You also quote "seeming is our...
view entire post
Rob,
Yes, language is ambiguous. As for awareness of "being" versus "seeming", I understand what you're saying (I think) but this ambiguity is built into language, via the abstraction of our models -- we simply cannot model "seeming".
My comment about "changes of topic" was made before I studied your comment. I agree it's not a big change of topic. You also quote "seeming is our only real direct experience", which goes hand in glove with my [crossed] comment about the only "two things I directly and immediately experience: gravity and awareness."
But stumbling around with terminology and ambiguity still leads to insight. In reviewing the above comments, including my last one, I realized that my emphasis on the personal experience of "topological" awareness, versus our evolved, adult human being "metric" awareness is truly central. Before symmetry broke and local mass concentrations evolved, the only possible mode of awareness was topological or connected, or "One-with-the-Universe" awareness, whereas our current universally evolved awareness of "things" [other things than one's local self/body] is now dominant, to the degree that topological awareness is almost completely suppressed. It can't be 'modeled' by the brain; it is in fact experienced only when brain 'models' are discombobulated. So if one cannot recall and has not experienced such topological awareness, then one has no idea what the primordial awareness of the gravity field could be, and, instead, it's just one more abstract model tossed on the pile. At this point, one might as well be a Platonist.
Nevertheless, the fact that ""seeming" is our only real direct experience" is dramatically different enough from robot/zombie existence to make even those who have forgotten connectedness realize that the mechanical/materialist view is incapable of explaining awareness. This has always been the case, which is why you can reference "ancient debates".
I'll paraphrase Sir Edmund Hillary: "When you have no goal you stumble across things that have no significance. But when you have a goal, you stumble on something, pick it up, and realize that it can be used as a tool to accomplish your goal." That's how I think of "finding what you don't even know you're looking for."
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 03:30 GMT
Edwin,
I like Hillary's comment regarding goals. "But an entity cannot form a conscious goal such as that until after it has discovered the concept of a goal - that an effect can be achieved by inventing it's cause." from my book, P.260
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Chidi Idika wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Your responses are vibrant. I have your essay to read next. Could you find time to read my
What a Wavefunction is And let me have your honest comment. Meanwhile, it makes demonstrable claims on the subject of consciousness/the observer. Now a warnig: the text may be "hard going" the physics is not! And I'll be back here to rate.
Best,
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 22:09 GMT
Thanks Chidi. I'm glad you enjoyed the responses. Of course that's in large part due to the great comments I've received. Hope you enjoy my essay as well. I'll look at yours.
Best, Edwin Eugene Klingman
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Dear Chidi,
I have read your very interesting essay. I'll make a few remarks:
You say "conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer values...". That's worth contemplating. For example, James Putnam objects to the vagueness and circularity of the force definition F = ma whereby force is defined in terms of mass and mass is defined in terms of force...
view entire post
Dear Chidi,
I have read your very interesting essay. I'll make a few remarks:
You say "conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer values...". That's worth contemplating. For example, James Putnam objects to the vagueness and circularity of the force definition F = ma whereby force is defined in terms of mass and mass is defined in terms of force (assuming acceleration is measurable.) If instead one rationalizes forces to dimensionless ratios, the mass becomes inverse acceleration m~1/a. I've played around with this in a number of key equations and everything seems to work [as one would expect, but one must always check.] I'm not sure that this is analogous to your statement, but there can be value in such statements.
You mention Peano's (and Noether's) notion of "the constant". I tend to think of physics as based around the notion of "the invariant", with energy being the prime invariant. Your position that 'observer' implies superposition of natural unit and natural limit is intriguing, requiring cogitation. You say "this function of being at once the unit-and-limit is the essential utility of such as Planck's constant h, Newton's G, and Einstein's c." You then map this into the term "observer". As I said this requires cogitation.
In my view information is what is stored following a threshold crossing which changes ('in'-forms) a physical structure. Until this threshold crossing and consequent change of physical structure occurs, there is only energy flow. Information thus "emerges" in "structure" or "context".
Once one "standardizes" such thresholds (as in silicon electronic gates) then one can construct 'logic gates' and connect these in simple structures to accept sequential inputs and produce binary (or other) coded outputs. This 'counter' circuit is the hardware implementation of Peano's Axioms, and it really doesn't matter whether the counter is implemented in DNA, silicon, or neural networks -- numbers result. Kronecker attributed these natural numbers to God and claimed that all other math is the work of man.
You seem to have something like this threshold in mind when you attempt to derive the "action potential" of 55 mV. I'm unsure whether you attach significance to this value, or simply to its function. You follow this with "the observable-ness of a number as a thing represented by the successor function of Peano's Axioms...". I'm uncertain of your point being made, but elsewhere I present the counter as the essential basis of physics, both in instrumentation and as creation-annihilation summation-of-particles counter in QED.
In summary, you've taken some very high-level abstractions, and, as far as I can tell, attempted to raise the level of abstraction. You tie this into specific numbers in a way that I do not understand. Your complete picture is impossible to understand in one or two readings, but some of your concepts seem worthy of reflection. I think you have covered too much ground, in a very unorthodox way, to accomplish in nine pages what you hope to accomplish. I would suggest that you pick a few key points and try to make them clear to an "average" physicist [whatever that may be.] Your point about the observer and the observable being inverse is fascinating, but I believe you will lose most people by going too far, too fast.
I hope this comment is useful to you. And I look forward to your comments after you have read my essay.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Ram Gopal Vishwakarma wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Edwin,
It was a privilege to read your essay. Though it is difficult to understand your proposed theory with such a brief description, it seems to share some common themes with my recent work (see my essay in the present contest). The non-locality of mass/energy has a deeper meaning than obvious, and is not realized generally. This, in fact, hints towards an altogether different representation of the source of gravitation in Einsteinian gravity. I would be glad to have your elucidations on your master equation in view of the new perspective I have proposed.
Wishing you luck,
___Ram
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:50 GMT
Dear Ram,
I've been very interested in your paper and also read your essay and your arXiv (ref [2]) several times. I've not yet had time to study the Milne model.
My model is based on the simplest possible assumption -- that only one field existed initially and has evolved to our current state. As most of the universe is described by the weak field equations I have focused on these, as they are solvable, whereas the full field equations are not, except in very simple cases. But as I point out, the weak field itself is not linear, only the weak field equations, therefore I have attempted to incorporate the non-linearity in these equations. My initial results are very promising, based on assumptions that I find reasonable. I have several problems in which I hope to apply this technique and will know more about the value of the technique only when I obtain these solutions. On page 4 you state: "...the gravitational energy is inherently present in equations (2) [...] resulting from the non-linearity of the equations." What else could the non-linearity represent?!
Since I first read your paper I've been working to show that Einstein's nonlinear field equations also derive from my master equation and this appears to be successful. I am rechecking my derivation currently. I have hesitated to comment on your page only because I have not had time to study the Milne and Kasner solutions in terms of my model.
I have recommended your essay to friends within and outside the FQXi community. I find your paper exciting and I believe that it is very relevant to my own work. I too consider it a privilege to read your essay.
Thank you for writing your paper and entering it in this contest. I believe your approach is correct. I hope to show the consistency of our approaches.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Ram Gopal Vishwakarma replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 23:38 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thanks for your marvelous remarks and your keen interest in my work. Recently I have found some more strong evidences and supports (not mentioned in the essay, but reported in two journals) for the new paradigm I've advocated. So, it seems to me that the approach is correct.
As you might have noticed in the essay, besides the gravitational energy, the matter fields (for example, the momentum density) also appear through the geometry (through the non-linearity) of the canonical equations R^{ik}=0.
___Ram
report post as inappropriate
Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:02 GMT
Dr. Klingman
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
Dr. Klingman
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 relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”
I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.
The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .
Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.
Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.
I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!
Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.
With regards,
Than Tin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 06:02 GMT
Dear Than Tin,
You begin with an excellent Feynman quote and then present a list of dualities that you cover in your essay, which I plan to read.
You noted that I "have touched some corners of it." I wonder which corners you had in mind? I typically try to relate specifics in other's essays to similarities in my own, to compare and contrast.
Thanks for the comment, and good luck in the contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Antoine Acke wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:07 GMT
Dear Eugene,
I enjoyed reading your very inspiring essay. I agree with you that it is experimentally obvious that gravity is real, that the gravitational field is not abstract geometry, and that the GEM theory leads to a consistent description of the gravitational phenomena and laws.
In my essay I show that the substantiality of the gravitational field can be explained by the hypothesis that it is a cloud of "information carried by informatons" ("g-information"). I start with the postulate that any material object manifests itself in space by emitting - at a rate proportional to its rest mass - what I call "informatons": granular entities that run away with the speed of light carrying information about the position and the state of movement of their emitter.
That hypothesis is justified by the following facts: we can deduce the GEM equations from the dynamics of the informatons and we can deduce the gravitational force exerted on a mass from the interaction between the "own" field of that mass with the flux of g-information emitted by other masses.
May I invite you to go through
my essay?
I wish you all the best in the contest,
Regards,
Antoine.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:14 GMT
Dear Antoine,
Thank you for reading and commenting so nicely about my essay. Yes, gravity is real. I have now read your essay and am always happy to see others recognize the existence of the gravitomagnetic field. Your treatment is original. I'm confused about several points however. You seem to imply that 'informatons' carry only information, not energy, and gravitons carry energy from oscillating masses. I do not understand how energy-less and mass-less particles can exert a force. In addition, you state that the informatons carry information about the velocity of the emitter. Do you explain how this information is coded, and how it must be decoded differently in different inertial frames, and who does the decoding? I could not find the answers in your essay.
I'm also confused about how the informatons exert the magnetic-like force orthogonal to both velocity and to the gravitomagnetic field. Do you explain this elsewhere? It's a very difficult concept to understand.
Thanks again for commenting and for participating in the contest. Good luck.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Antoine Acke replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 10:39 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,
Thanks for your reply.
In my essay INFORMATION AS THE SUBSTANCE OF GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS I give an introduction to my idea's about gravity (and electromagnetism). These idea's are elaborated in detail in ref 6 and in ref 7. Some comments on the points mentioned by you.
1. In a space where there are no other particles, a particle with mass m at rest in a...
view entire post
Dear Edwin Eugene,
Thanks for your reply.
In my essay
INFORMATION AS THE SUBSTANCE OF GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS I give an introduction to my idea's about gravity (and electromagnetism). These idea's are elaborated in detail in
ref 6 and in
ref 7. Some comments on the points mentioned by you.
1. In a space where there are no other particles, a particle with mass m at rest in a point P is at the centre of its own perfectly spherical cloud of informatons whose g-indices all point to P. This symmetry relative to P of the g-field generated by m is called the "characteritic symmetry of the own field of m" (§3.2). When there is a second particle (with mass M) in the neighbourhood, the flux of g-information generated by that particle will disturb the characteristic symmetry of the own field of m. In P - the position of m - , the extent of that disturbance is characterized by the gravitational field {E-g} generated by M. If it is free to move, the particle m could restore in its direct vicinity the characteric symmetry of its own field by accelerating with an amount {a}={E-g}. Indeed, accelerating this way has the effect that the gravitational field generated by M is cancelled in P. If it accelerates that way, m becomes "blind" for the g-information send by M to P. That implies that the gravitational field {E-g} exerts an action on m: the gravitational force. In the same paragraph it is shown that this action must be proportional to the mass m and to the field {E-g}.
2. "How is the information about the velocity of the emitter of an informaton coded?" An object at rest emits informatons whose g-index {s-g} has the same direction as their velocity {c}. This is no longer the case when the emitter is moving (§4.1). How greater the speed of the emitter, how greater the deviation of {s-g} relative to {c}. This deviation is characteristic for the speed of the emitter. The additional attribute of an informaton referring to information about the status of motion of its emitter is called its "beta-index". The beta-index of an informaton is represented by a vectorial quantity {s-beta} that is perpendicular to the plane formed by {s-g} and {c}; and the magnitude of {s-beta} is proportional to the component of the velocity of the emitter that is perpenicular to the velocity of the informaton. Macroscopically the density of the cloud of beta-information in a point is characterized by the "gravitational induction" {B-g}.
3. The gravito-magnetic force on a moving mass m is explained in the same way as the gravitational force on a mass at rest: as an effect of the disturbance of the characteristic symmetry. It is shown that a mass m, moving with a velocity {v} is the source of an own g-induction field that "rotates" around its path. The extent to which this "characteristic symmetry" is broken when m moves in the induction field {B-g} generated by other masses is characterized by the vectorial product ({v} x {B-g})and it is shown that m becomes blind for that disturbance by accelerating with an amount {a}={v}x{B-g} (§4.2).
I hope that this remarks may clarify some points mentioned by you.
Good luck,
Antoine.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Dear Antoine,
Thanks for answering my questions so succinctly, and pointing out that refs 6 and 7 hold more elaboration. I will look at these references. The idea that the acceleration of mass is generated by the particle's motion to restore symmetry is an interesting, and I believe original, idea and I will give it some thought. I do not quite understand your answer about the information about the velocity, but I will look at 6 and 7 for this insight.
If your theory makes any predictions, I would also be interested in those as I am, as mentioned, very interested in gravito-magnetism.
Thanks for the clarification and the links to references.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Antoine Acke replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 11:37 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,
Thanks for your interest in my ideas.
1. The idea that the mechanism behind gravitational interactions is a tendency to restore the symmetry of the "own" field (cloud of g-information) of a particle in an "extern" g-fied is inspired by the observation of the gravitational interaction between two (or more) masses.
Indeed; two masses - m and M - anchored in...
view entire post
Dear Edwin Eugene,
Thanks for your interest in my ideas.
1. The idea that the mechanism behind gravitational interactions is a tendency to restore the symmetry of the "own" field (cloud of g-information) of a particle in an "extern" g-fied is inspired by the observation of the gravitational interaction between two (or more) masses.
Indeed; two masses - m and M - anchored in the points P and Q of space - are the source of a gravitational field that is the superposition of the g-fields generated by each of them. That effective gravitational field is not symmetric, nor relative to P nor relative to Q. If we make the masses free, m will be accelerated by the field of M and M by the field of m. If we let them move to each other via equilibrium states (on every moment we compensate the gravitational attraction) they will finally form one particle with mass (m + M) generating a gravitational field that is perfectly symmetric relative to the position of its source. From that we can conclude that the reciprocal attraction aims to realize a situation where there is only a perfectly symmetric graviational field.
The same result could be obtained by repulsion: when both particles are infinitely far apart there is also no disturbance of the symmetry of their "own" fields. In the case of gravitation nature chooses apparently for attraction but in the case of electricity repulsion is also an option.
2. A mass m, moving with constant velocity {v} relative to an inertial reference frame O, emits informatons that move away from the position of m at the time of emission (P-o in fig 3 of the essay): the velocity vector {c} of these informatons - that on the moment t pass in the point P - is oriented in the direction of the position vector {PoP}.
But one must understand that their g-index {s-g} always points to the actual position of their emitter (point P-1 in fig 3). Indeed; according to the postulate of the emission of informatons, in the inertial reference frame O' anchored to the moving mass {s-g} points to the emitter of the informatons. This implies that - relative to the reference frame O - {s-g} points to P-1.
So, there is a deviation (the "characteristic deviation") between the orientations of {c} and {s-g} that depends on the velocity of m: it is chracteristic for the speed of the emitter. All g-information about the velocity of the emitter is contained in the vectorial product of {s-g} with the unit vector {c}/c: the characteristic deviation as well as the plane in which the mass and the informatons are moving. We call that vectorial product the "beta-index".
3. It is GEM that makes predictions about gravity, my theory has the ambition to explain GEM. In ref 6 there is a detailed mathematical deduction of the gravitational field and of the gravitational induction in relativistic situations, and of the four laws of GEM (analogues to Maxwell's laws) from the dynamics of the informatons. I think that this, together with the deduction of the gravitational force (see point 1), the study of gravitational phenomena associated with accelerated masses and the explanation of electromagnetism (in ref 7) justifies the introduction of information as substance of gravitational and electromagnetic fields, and of informatons as the constituent elements of that substance.
Best,
Antoine Acke
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:55 GMT
Dear Edward,
You have produced yet another masterful essay and that too on your favorite subject- gravitation. Your essay is filled with originality and you have developed your C-field further so as to encompass both gravity and EM field in to one reference frame. It is interesting to note the way you have done it from your ‘master equation’. You have now thought how gravitational field manifests (I don’t want to use the word- creates) masses and hence energy in it. But this has been pointed out by me in my previous year’s (2012) fqxi essay contest paper. In it I have dealt with the QG field and black holes. So, please, go through it and ‘see’ it through the eyes of your ‘master equation’ and C-field; there you find ‘revelation’ of your dream of unifying gravitational field with the EM field. I insist you to see that essay and then inform me what you have found in it.
BTW, please, have a peep in to my current essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your invaluable comments on it in my thread.
Thanks again for producing such a heart touching essay.
Best wishes,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Sreenath,
Thank you for reading and so graciously commenting upon my essay. As you noted, I continue to develop my theory of gravitation as in earlier fqxi essays. Typically each contest provides questions to answer, concepts to explain, and the stimulus of new ideas from others essays. The result is year-by-year improvement in our theories.
I focus on the few things that I have direct and immediate awareness of: gravity and self-awareness. You mention in your essay that -- as we advance from classical macro-physics, where sight and sound provide relatively direct information, to the microscopic world of QM, in which only indirect information is provided by instruments -- the kind of information is different, and can be interpreted in many ways. This helps to explain the many "consistent" versions of QM. I also agree with you that information is nonphysical in nature. And it is probably true that our knowledge is nonphysical, without defining knowledge exactly. Also, that "constructing [a model of] Reality of the external world" is the most important function of the brain. Additionally, I agree that "there is no limit to the comprehension power of the human mind [and] no limit to the horizon of his imagination." And finally, I generally agree that "Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit", although it is difficult to fit the direct experience of gravity into this formulation.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 08:07 GMT
Dear Edwin,
From your last sentence in your above remark it appears (or certain?) to me that you are not 'seeing' gravity now but feeling (experiencing) it as you are trying to become one with the reality of gravity through the vision your wisdom has provided you with the help of your mathematical skills. This reminds me of subject (mind) becoming one with the object (reality), in the Indian philosophical system of 'Advaita' Vedanta, to attain liberation from the bounds of our senses. This is how I cognize your present state. Am I mistaken? You only can tell.
Best wishes,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 23:03 GMT
Dear Sreenath,
I am even more hesitant to interpret other philosophical systems than I am physics, however, according to my interpretation of Vedanta, you are not entirely mistaken in your cognizance.
Best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:04 GMT
Dear Edwin,
One single principle leads the Universe.
Every thing, every object, every phenomenon
is under the influence of this principle.
Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.
I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,
but the main part is coming soon.
Thank you, and good luck!
I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.
Please visit
My essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
I agree with your essay that dualism is certainly a major aspect of reality, although I don't necessarily agree that the world is binary. The existence of almost any feature or property of anything is typically defined in contrast to its opposite, hence duality. Thus it seems not unreasonable to view duality as a basic principle of the universe.
In fact, I discuss dualism in my essay and point out a little recognized duality associated with the gravitomagnetic field.
Thank you very much for reading my essay and commenting. Good luck in the contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:09 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Empirically nature of information is continuum, while the phenomenon of gravitation differs from particle scenario to
string-matter continuum scenario, in that gravitation is a tensor product that emerges with eigen-rotations of string-matter segments. In this scenario, information is the transfer of mass of string-segments with eigen-rotational energy, whereas in particle scenario it is the transfer of energy only. This describes that, information is physical and gravity is an integral part of it; while eigen-rotation of string-segment is causal for dynamic time evolution with other space-time coordinators and thus a causal set, in that ‘past’ of that locality is local rather than universal.
In this context your concepts on information, ‘in-formation’ from form-al structure on states, is true; though three eigen-rotational states are expressional with this paradigm.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear Jayakar,
Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I'm glad to see that you find the concept of 'information' from formal structure on states as true, and will follow the link you provided to see in what sense you interpret this.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 01:29 GMT
Dear Edwin - a very thought provoking essay. I think I may need to read your other work in order to appreciate it fully. I enjoyed the snippets of wisdom from Lee Smolin's book, which is on my iPad the day it came out. I enjoyed it very much, but perhaps not as much as his previous books, the Trouble with Physics (which makes many similar points to your essay), and Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, which I regard as a classic, and should be read by every scientifically literate individual.
I liked the way you brought in the Leibniz quote. Very nice.
Good luck in the contest.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT
Dear Paul,
I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. As I noted on your page, I very much enjoyed the originality and lucidity with which you present a 'far-out' idea so well that I must take it seriously. That is the real beauty of these FQXi contests. Neither your nor my essays would stand a chance of being published in Phys Rev Lett, partially because we are outside of academia (the 'establishment') but also because we push the limits. Yet FQXi gives us a platform to expose our ideas and receive feedback. Who could ask for anything more? (Well, yes, we could ask, but who would expect anything more in this old world.)
Thanks for reading and commenting (I also enjoyed your comments scattered about) and good luck in the contest. I look forward to your future contributions.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Chidi Idika wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 18:07 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Great essay, as far I can see. Here is to you (my rating) for pushing boundaries. You state:
“My self-awareness is integral, not fractured or fragmented. So I see light —not a photon, not a ‘bit’—but images”
I think it is the central objective of science to differential always between FACT and EXPLANATIONS of fact. If we mix these up we miss the unique value of science to society.
And thanks for that power comment over at my blog. You may want to take another look and see my exchange with Marcoen. I think it clarifies. And please DO rate me as you deem.
Regards,
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:30 GMT
Dear Chidi,
I very much appreciated your remark above, "I think it is the central objective of science to differential always between FACT and EXPLANATIONS of fact." That is a very appropriate response to the statement you quoted.
I am also pleased that you found my comment to you helpful. Also, you suggested that I look at your exchange with Marcoen, which I have done. He put a lot of effort into suggestions on how to make your ideas more understandable. At one point you say "May be I should make myself more express and not unduly expect imagination from my readers."
Yes, that is very important. When one has a clear idea of something, one sometimes assumes that others have the same idea, or can do so "with just a little imagination." But the fact is that when one is dealing with complicated ideas of the kind treated in FQXi essays, it is best to require as little imagination as possible from the reader. The more one can clarify his ideas, requiring minimum interpretation, the better.
Finally, in your last comment to Marcoen you say, "if in my axioms we replace the word "entity" with the word "universal constant" this whole thing about axioms DISAPPEARS and one has rather conventional wisdom." This choice of words is critical, and changes the whole meaning of your essay for most readers. For most of us, the word "entity" does not connote "universal constant", or vice versa. I would strongly suggest that you make this change in your future development of your ideas. It takes a while to understand these things, and even a longer while to help others to understand them.
This change helps me understand better the point you are trying to make.
Thanks for reading my essay and commenting.
Best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman.
CS Unnikrishnan wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear Edwin Klingman,
If I understand correctly, you are exploring the issue of reality in the context of 'theories' of reality of physical nature, highlighting the large content of 'belief' and inserted parameters in the constructed reality in theories. Certainly it is important to point that out.
However, you have decided to risk proposing a theory yourself, subject to the same critique. You work with a single complex field, because that is simpler, but with a larger ingredient of belief and hope, perhaps. The problem does not end after writing down an equation - the consequences and their connections to what one can observe and test, quantitatively, is also important. So, isn't it too premature to call the description on page 3 a theory of physical nature?
Thanks and regards,
Unnikrshnan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 14:36 GMT
Dear Unnikrshnan,
You are certainly correct to state that, if I am highly critical of current theories of physics, I should expect equally critical examination of my own theory. You are also correct that page 3 does not constitute a theory. With a 9 page limit it is difficult to furnish a complete example of a theory, and also discuss the nature of the reality of information, in support of the main theme. But that is what page 12 is intended to support, and what my references 10, 11, 14, 22, 24, 25, 26,and 28 contain. So yes, I think it is a theory, with predictions, and suggestions for tests, and explanations for current anomalies that other theories cannot explain. And as I mention with respect to my newly worked out n-GEM technique of 'non-linearizing' the weak field equation(s), I hope to provide much more quantitative predictions in the reasonable near future.
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 17:16 GMT
Hello Edwin from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder - I just finished a very long commentary on your fine essay & thanking you for your encouragement & I pushed the wrong button & lost it - I think !! I'm so cross with myself, I enjoyed your essay very much - I might try again later today (actually its 3.30 am here !!!)
Regards
Margriet
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 20:02 GMT
Hi Margriet from DownUnder,
Sorry to hear the dog ate your homework. That has happened to me so many times that I now prepare long comments offline in WordPad or equivalent, then copy the comment over. Then if it eats it, I still have it.
Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting. As I remarked on your page, we have largely arrived at a similar general model of consciousness and information, although the specifics of the 'interstitial fluid' differ in details.
Again, welcome to FQXi and thanks for submitting your essay. Most of your feedback was good, which should make you happy as this was your first effort at a paper or essay.
Best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Margriet Anne O'Regan replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 01:15 GMT
Yep !!!!! I finally figured out how to write it up off line & then copy it in, thanx !!!! So now even though it's all so last minute-ly I'm rattling off my enthusiastic comments to other essayists every 15min or so - as, of course I kinda wrote up a 'blanket statement' . .... with personalized comments added at the last second - & not faked ones I can assure you as this intellectual adventure...
view entire post
Yep !!!!! I finally figured out how to write it up off line & then copy it in, thanx !!!! So now even though it's all so last minute-ly I'm rattling off my enthusiastic comments to other essayists every 15min or so - as, of course I kinda wrote up a 'blanket statement' . .... with personalized comments added at the last second - & not faked ones I can assure you as this intellectual adventure has been one of if not the best I've ever had - reading AND COMMUNICATING with other 'searchers' !!!!! wow ....
So here is my 'one-size-fits-all' as it does emphasize at least one aspect of my findings which I didn't stress in my essay . . ..
My own investigations have led me to conclude that ‘information’ is NOT digits – no kind, variety or amount of them (including any that can be extracted from quantum phenomena!), nor how algorithmically-well they may be massaged & shunted through any device that uses them.
Unequivocally they – digits – make for wonderful COUNTING & CALCULATING assistants, witness our own now many & various, most excellent, counting, calculating devices BUT according to my investigations real thinking is an entirely different phenomenon from mere counting, calculating & computing.
For which phenomenon – real thinking – real information is required.
My own investigations led me to discover what I have come to believe real information is & as it so transpires it turns out to be an especially innocuous – not to omit almost entirely overlooked & massively understudied – phenomenon, none other than the sum total of geometrical objects otherwise quite really & quite properly present here in our universe. Not digits. It's ALL ANALOGUE.
One grade (the secondary one) of geometrical-cum-informational objects lavishly present here in our cosmos, is comprised of all the countless trillions & trillions of left-over bump-marks still remaining on all previously impacted solid objects here in our universe – that is to say, all of the left-over dents, scratches, scars, vibrations & residues (just the shapes of residues – not their content!) (really) existing here in the universe.
Examples of some real geometrical objects of this secondary class in their native state are all of the craters on the Moon. Note that these craters are – in & of themselves – just shapes – just geometrical objects. And the reason they are, also one & at the same time, informational objects too, can be seen by the fact that each ‘tells a story’ – each advertises (literally) some items of information on its back – each relates a tale of not only what created it but when, where & how fast & from what angle the impacting object descended onto the Moon’s surface. Again, each literally carries some information on its back.
(Note : Not a digit in sight !!)
How we actually think – rather than just count, calculate & compute – with these strictly non-digital entities, specifically these geometrical-cum-informational objects, in precisely the way we do, please see my essay.
I did not make the distinction between computing with digits & real thinking with real information, sufficiently strongly in my essay.
This contest is such a wonderful ‘sharing’ – Wow – & open to amateurs like myself – Wow. How great is that !!! Thank you Foundational Questions Institute!!! What a great pleasure it has been to participate. What a joy to read, share & discuss with other entrants !!!
Margriet O’Regan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 01:34 GMT
Edwin,
In my usual distracted fashion, it has taken me several tries to read through your essay. It pulls a lot together and the wires in my brain get crossed.
The result is that I have to look at things very simplistically and other ways of thinking keep popping up.
Rather than the gravity field as the source of consciousness, why not light?
Consciousness is not...
view entire post
Edwin,
In my usual distracted fashion, it has taken me several tries to read through your essay. It pulls a lot together and the wires in my brain get crossed.
The result is that I have to look at things very simplistically and other ways of thinking keep popping up.
Rather than the gravity field as the source of consciousness, why not light?
Consciousness is not structured, but simply the element of awareness. It is only as it condenses down into denser forms of mass that structure and complexity emerge, so it would be that knowledge is the increasingly complex concentration of awareness and gravity is this process of concentration.
Then gravity is simply the vacuum effect of light coalescing into mass, rather than a property of mass. Much as mass releasing light creates pressure. Both pressure and vacuum can be modeled geometrically, without needing their own particles and waves. So light and radiation is the gravity wave; What escapes as mass keeps getting ever more concentrated.
Of course, black holes are the center of much larger gravity fields and seem more likely to be the vortices/eye of the storm, at the center, rather then some object or other worldly dimension. Then whatever actually falls in, is spun back out the poles as cosmic rays, being shot across the universe.
So if gravity is a contraction of light, this would mean free photons/light quanta, are not dimensionless points, but more diffuse fields and it is this expanding effect which creates redshift proportional to distance, as well as why gravity and expansion are inversely proportional, since they would be opposite sides of a cosmic convection cycle. If convection pretty much defines the atmospheric and geologic activity on this planet, as well as all others and their stars, why wouldn't it be the basis for galactic activity as well?
Then we wouldn't need inflation, or dark energy and dark matter either, since it is all "glued" together and those outer rings of the galaxies are being pulled along. Those outer stars are first generation anyway and lack heavy elements.
Regards,
JM
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:34 GMT
Hi John,
I think we discussed some of this above. I don't think your ideas about light as the basis of consciousness or gravity hold together. You ask, "Rather than the gravity field as the source of consciousness, why not light?" My essay is the short version, but I have written two books (on Amazon) that give you the long answer. None of these fit into a comment.
Your ideas are more poetic than physical, and do not offer explanations of how it all fits together, or equations to calculate the results of measurements, or predictions of what to look for, or any other of the requirements of a theory of physics. As I've told you before, I like the analogical ideas and metaphorical connections to social, political, and economic reality that you throw out regularly, and I agree with you that physics is very much in need of a swift kick in the pants, but whatever the final outcome, the 'final theory' will almost certainly come from someone who understands the current theories.
You would be surprised how many ideas can be cobbled together using words that very loosely relate to each other. But physics has to eventually produce numbers that match measurements as well as seamlessly tieing it all together.
Thanks for reading and commenting. My suggestion, take it or leave it, would be to try to understand what I am saying rather than to immediately propose your ideas as a way of dismissing mine.
Have fun,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Kyle Miller wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 17:47 GMT
I like the approach you took with your essay. The historical stuff, the illustrations, and the examples you gave make for a much more interesting read. I think your prose is also clear cut and makes otherwise hard to grasp philosophical things--like the essay prompt--easier to understand, which is good for making your essay more accessible. There is a bit of esoteric maths, not too much, but more than I would prefer in a essay entry for this contest. Alas, I think the conclusion in my essay corroborates your intuitions about forces (e.g., gravity) being more real than bits.
Please see my essay: All Your Base Are Belong To Math.
- Kyle Miller
P.s. I attached an updated version of my entry for last year's contest, I thought you might enjoy it.
attachments:
The_Quantum_Supremacy2.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Kyle,
I always enjoy your essays, the current and the last. For example, only you seem to realize: "Electricity is well understood within Newtonian mechanics too; it's only a theoretical physicist who would prefer understanding electricity using a relativistic quantum field theory (i.e., quantum electrodynamics or QED)"
I also enjoyed your take in the last essay: "Teleology can offer an account of the universe where LSD, the "ultimate forbidden fruit," is the final cause..." You may recall a discussion I had last year with you and Georgina (on your page). Your essays are unique and you make valuable contributions to FQXi in my opinion.
I hope you continue to submit such essays, year after year.
Thank you for reading mine and commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:25 GMT
Dear Edwin,
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Thank you for returning and rating my essay. As I discussed in my above reply to you, we do agree that duality is a key principle, and I gave an example in my current essay. Thanks again for rating my essay, and good luck with your theory. FQXi is an excellent place to offer such theories.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Charles Raldo Card,
I enjoyed your extended comment above, attempting to integrate and summarize the ideas from various essays. I agree with you that Alex Grinbaum's loop is an important contribution, as I noted in several comments on his page and on my page above.
I find comments such as yours very worth reading and appreciate your placing it on my page. I hope you find time to read and study my essay. Thanks again,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Antoine Acke wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,
May I draw your attention to my reply to your post of jul 30 where I have given further clarification concerning certain points that are treated in
my essay: the accelaration of an object as an effect of the disturbance of the symmetry of its own gravitational field, the encoding of information about the velocity of the emitter, and the relation between the "theory of informatons" and the observation of gravitational phenomena.
May I ask you to take these clarifications into account when you rate my essay?
Best,
Antoine.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Antoine,
Thank you for the reminder that you did answer several of my questions, including the explanation about "the accelaration of an object as an effect of the disturbance of the symmetry of its own gravitational field," which seems to be an original idea. I did take this into account when I rated your essay.
Thanks for the extended discussion trying to relate our interest in gravitomagnetism.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Edwin,
We had many good comments in our corresponding threads few weeks ago and mutually agreed in some of our ideas, but probably forgot to rate both of our essays.
I impressed by some of your's ideas there. So I rate you maximum. What is yours assessment on me?
Best wishes
Dipak
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Dipak, I did not forget to rate you about the time we read each other's essays. Thank you for coming back to my essay before the close, and best of luck in the contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:33 GMT
Greetings Ed,
I enjoyed being able to push your rating up a bit. Well done. Your high standing is well-deserved. I wish you the best of luck in the finals.
Have Fun,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
Thanks Jonathan,
The rocky ride begins in a few hours. It's been another very worthwhile contest, despite a number of irregularities, and I've benefited via insights from many different essays, including yours. I look forward to your next essay, and to the Kauffmann-like blogs you will probably bring to our attention in the coming year.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 08:55 GMT
I am late in commenting your article because I come back to it several times. I rate you 9. Just look formulas in my essay and comment it. That would be enough. Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Branko,
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I have looked at your essay and find some points of agreement. For example, you say "Overwhelmed by information overload, sometimes contradictory, we have to decide in advance which information we would pay attention to." For example, although general relativity applies to almost everything, I am primarily focused on the application of GR to particle physics.
I also agree that the Cycle is a fundamental concept on which to focus, and believe that gravito-magnetism introduced the fundamental cycle into existence when the primordial symmetry broke.
I have also been playing with James Putnam's idea of dimensionless force, and find that this leads to some insights that might otherwise be missed. I certainly agree with you that the fine structure constant is a key dimensionless parameter, but I do not find the proton-electron mass ration to be significant in my theory. I have not had time to study the values in your table.
Thanks again for reading my essay and coming back to it.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:37 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,
As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your beautiful Essay. Here are my comments/questions.
1) As I told in my Essay page, I worked and still work on gravito-magnetism. Thus, I have a personal interest in your Essay.
2) You extend General Relativity by adding your C field. This theory reproduces GR equations, but it represents a Yang-Mills gauge theory of mass. I think that similar results could be, in principle, re-obtained in some extended theories of gravity like scalar-tensor gravity and f(R) theory. You could be interested to extend your non-linear approach in those cases too.
3) Recently, Fromholz, Poisson and Will reformulated the MTW's statement that "any physical theory originally written in a special coordinates system can be recast in geometric, coordinate free language" as "The principle of general covariance, upon which general relativity is built, implies that coordinates are simply labels of spacetime events that can be assigned completely arbitrarily (subject to some conditions of smoothness and differentiability). The only quantities that have physical meaning - the measurables - are those that are invariant under coordinate transformations. One such invariant is the number of ticks on an atomic clock giving the proper time between two events", see http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0394.
4) I agree with your statement that all energy gravitates, but the problem is that, based on Einstein Equivalence Principle, the gravitational energy cannot be localized! This is in perfect agreement with Yau's statement and is also connected to Kauffmann's work recently noted by FQXi.
5) I think that solar system tests of gravity should put some constrains to the C-filed. In general, deviations from standard GR must be weak for a theory to be viable. Thus, I suggest you to extend your work in this direction too.
6) Concerning the linearization process, do you think that the C-field should enable more gravity-waves polarizations than the two standard polarizations of GR?
In any case, I found your Essay a bite provocative and also interesting. As I appreciate people who "think outside the box", I will give you a high rate.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Dear Christian,
Thank you for reading and commenting, and particularly for the information you convey in your comments. I've already read your paper on gravito-magnetism (with Iorio) and found it the most concise and complete history of gravito-magnetism, and development of GW calculations.
I've not had an opportunity to look it scalar-tensor and f(R) extended theories yet.
Thank you for the reference to Fromholz, Poisson, and Will's work.
Yes, the idea that all energy gravitates is relatively new to me (or at least its significance) and very exciting.
I agree that solar system tests put relevant constraints on the C-field, but I'm not yet sure that these apply at the higher density one encounters it particle levels. Investigation of this is my immediate goal. I have not yet applied the n-GEM technique to gravity waves.
Thank you again for the comments and the rating, and congratulations on your unquestioned and deserved lead in this contest.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I think yours is a terrific essay in so many ways, and so learned.
Your section entitled "Why do physicists 'believe' current theories?" was a bit of an eye-opener. But I must say I was amazed at the many similarities of viewpoint between your essay and my essay. But there are other similarities too. E.g. I was pleased that you mentioned "the concept of 'false' information", which I've often thought must be accounted for in a picture of reality. Also the idea that "only one real field existed initially...[that] could evolve only through self-interaction" - very interesting that there now seems to be evidence that gravity really does interact with itself, which seems to back up the idea behind your master equation.
I'm not sure what your "Number Generating System" numbers are. I wondered if they were in any way similar to the non-Platonic physically real numbers I tried to make a case for in my essay.
Another interesting point you make is: the fact that the universe naturally self organizes "is an anti-entropic characteristic that only gravity seems to exhibit-and living beings!"
I think your essay deserves to win a prize. Best wishes,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:02 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
Thanks for the above comment. As you know from my long comment on your page, it's mutual. I found your essay to be one of the closest to mine in concept and in detail. We very much see the key issues in a similar light.
As for "number generating system", I address Wigner's issue of why mathematics is so incredibly effective in describing scientific reality. I start with the logic of physical thresholds, which convert analog reality to approximate binary models, and the fact that counters are easy to build from such connected gates. Then I ask how the resulting numbers can be applied to reality. This is beyond a comment, but is covered briefly in my essay and thoroughly in my expanded dissertation "The Automatic Theory of Physics".
Congratulations again on your wonderful essay and thanks for your remarks. I look forward to reading your next essay!
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:16 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,
And if the eUniverse was a work of art ?
The eUniverse conceiving the woman and the man, the flowers and the smiley faces, is a recognized Artist.
The evidence is there and will remain forever. The motion was obvious for Aristotle, also for Galileo, Newton and Einstein. What has changed is the understanding and interpretation.
For the...
view entire post
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,
And if the eUniverse was a work of art ?
The eUniverse conceiving the woman and the man, the flowers and the smiley faces, is a recognized Artist.
The evidence is there and will remain forever. The motion was obvious for Aristotle, also for Galileo, Newton and Einstein. What has changed is the understanding and interpretation.
For the eDuality the same thing : wave-particle, space-time, matter-antimatter, and so on ..
Everybody recognize that duality is everywhere. But without generalization, some do not agree that our eReality is binary. They refuse to believe, to recognize in the eReality of the eDuality, and that eDuality is our eReality.
The question is how to see, to understand and to interpret this eDuality, this blatant evidence, this shrill obvious fact.
Our eReality is made of evidence that we must know how to read.
The eUniverse is such as It is. We cannot fundamentally change It. It is our approach, our conception that must change.
Here comes a One Theory of eDuality, which is the most modern, and which concerns the whole eUniverse in its entirety, and in its smallest details, and that applies to all domains of human knowledge.
The Theory that is going to revolutionize the world of ideas. A new Science, quantitative and qualitative is going to emerge.
Such a statement has something shocking for the one who discovers or who hears for the first time about it. For me it is a eReality that I live since I discovered it, for years now, and I will publish soon.
The contest ends and I did not come to occupy the top rank. In all cases not with three pages of poetry as you say. In addition there was inside only remarks and not scientific declarations.
But what I assert results from my current work concerning this famous Theory of Everything.
But I took the opportunity for testing the ground and seeing of what the scientific community thinks on this subject.
Now that it's done I have yet to publish and prove.
So good luck to the rest of the program.
And sorry if something is badly translated by Google.
Good luck and best wishes,
Amazigh H.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:00 GMT
Wonderful to see you finish in the top 10!
Good luck in the finals, Ed. May the expert panel find as much to like about your essay as I did. You deserve to win a prize this year. Very well done.
Have Fun!
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks. I'm also happy to see that you made it. In fact, most of those that I hoped would make it did so, with the exception of a few very excellent essays, that did not. It is hard to understand how excellent essays do not make the cutoff, but that happens every year.
As occurs every year, the stimulation of new ideas and interactions with great people make this contest worth the time and effort it requires.
Best to you and all of my FQXi friends,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman:
I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. As you can see my mind it is probably the opposite of yours, but maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called...
view entire post
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman:
I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. As you can see my mind it is probably the opposite of yours, but maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.
I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay “The deep nature of reality”.
I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don’t understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).
Hawking in “A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.
I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.
With my best whishes
Héctor
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
William C. McHarris wrote on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Ed,
Thank you very much for your kind remarks concerning my essay and for your e-mail. I responded to some of this under my thread.
You write convincingly, eloquently, and overwhelmingly! I especially liked — and, naturally, agreed with — your first section. Physics in general does seem to be stuck in a rut. One of the most positive aspects of this contest is that it allows for the introduction of ideas that are "out of the box," and which provoke deeper investigation of what science is all about. Your essay does an admirable job of this.
I fear that my knowledge of General Relativity is somewhat superficial, so I don't have any sort of solid, "gut" feeling about its concrete, experimental aspects. (I'm still an experimentalist at heart!) Thus, I couldn't follow your arguments to much depth, but it seems that the use of the interplay between linearity and nonlinearity is well worth following up. My only worry at the moment is that it might be too general in coupling relativity with electromagnetism (and quantum mechanics?). Could you comment on this — at your leisure, of course?
Now that the commenting and voting is past, I should have time to pursue things further. I'll look up your previous essay, and especially your books. Give me a few months, and I can respond more intelligently.
Best wishes,
Bill
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Bill,
Thanks for your response and your kind words. I knew that we shared several ideas about the current state of physics, having read your essay and other publications. And apparently about human foibles and fashion. As I noted, I'm excited about your perspective on nonlinearity as potential source of 'weirdness' in QM.
I can't tell from your comment whether you are...
view entire post
Dear Bill,
Thanks for your response and your kind words. I knew that we shared several ideas about the current state of physics, having read your essay and other publications. And apparently about human foibles and fashion. As I noted, I'm excited about your perspective on nonlinearity as potential source of 'weirdness' in QM.
I can't tell from your comment whether you are familiar with gravito-magnetism or are confusing it with gravity plus electromagnetism. The 'magnetic' aspect of gravity is analogous to but completely separate from electromagnetism. As indicated in my essay, the gravitic C-field is sourced by mass density (in motion) and I claim that electrons and quarks are arguably the densest mass in the universe. This seems to have been ignored, along with the nonlinear nature of the field. If the nonlinearity is not taken into account the field is considered too weak to have much effect. However I believe the nonlinearity, combined with the extreme density, do produce effects, and I am optimistic that my approach will produce quantitative results, not just a qualitative explanation of current anomalies. If you read my previous essay,
The Nature of the Wave Function (also suffering from a nine page limit) you may find a better explanation of how the C-field relates to QM. As a result of questions and comments I've received about that essay, I've extended the approach and hopefully improved the theory.
Your worry about overgeneralizing is understandable, but if the nonlinearity works as my preliminary calculations suggest, then it plays a greater role in particle physics than has been supposed. I hope to solve several specific problems in this area within the coming year.
As for electromagnetism and gravity, there have been famous failures in this area, with Wheeler's Geometrodynamics being one of them. Nevertheless, others in this essay contest and elsewhere continue to probe this theme. It's currently probably the weakest aspect of my theory.
Briefly, Einstein's full nonlinear field equations deal with almost 200 derivatives with 20 constants to be solved for. This, on top of the nonlinearity, makes the topic extremely nonintuitive. But the linearized equations resemble Maxwell's equations sufficiently to permit analogical thinking, upon which much intuition is based. I intend to be guided by this analogical thinking while adding the nonlinearity back into the problem in (what I hope to be) a computable approach to the problem.
I would very much like to keep in touch with you.
Thanks again and my very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 22:50 GMT
Recent comments on Daryl Janzen's thread caught my attention.
In particular, I really like Daryl's statement:
"The way for relativity to make sense is to assume that time truly passes and simultaneity is absolute, regardless of the fact that simultaneous events won't be described as synchronous in just any given reference frame."
Simultaneity is the fact, synchronicity is the communication of the event over distances at the speed of light, obviously synchronous only for equidistant observers, or other equivalent special relations between frames.
I have put enough thought into it to convince myself that there's absolutely no way our universe could "hold together" in stable fashion for 14 giga-year unless simultaneity spans the universe. This is why the "ict" formalism is appropriate (despite MTW). The orthogonality of time is a different order of orthogonality than that between the three spatial dimensions. Thus the signature: (-,+,+,+).
I also agree with Daryl's realist position that things should "make sense". I've often heard that "our brains evolved" in the classical world and we shouldn't expect to make sense of a quantum universe, or relativistic universe, etc." But if consciousness is as I propose in my essay, an inherent property of creation, then one would expect things to make sense.
I've begun reading a new book, "Bankrupting Physics" by Unzicker and Jones, which I recommend other realists.
I'm glad to see some comments going after the voting has closed.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I read with great interest your latest essay, and this I can write now without asking for a rating, I mean it.
There are some important parallels with my perception of reality and of course also great differences.
We have one thing in common : The Consciousness Field. Your consciousness field can be compared with my non-causal consciousness that triggers the causal consciousness and so is the cause of excitations in the field that is the originator of ALL particles. The difference is that my excitations are lasting only one Planck moment. It is our causal consciousness that is entangled with its non causal part (together forming the Consciousness Field) that is pasting these Planck moments together into a understandable "history".
This is only part of the picture so I would be oblidged if you could spent some time to read and comment my essay.
Best regards
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.