CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
Software Cosmos by Hugh Matlock
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Hugh Matlock wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT
Essay AbstractTo decide the question “It from Bit or Bit from It?” we first describe a software simulation architecture for the cosmos. After refining the model using ideas from physics, we consider whether its operation is consistent with astronomical observation. A test is suggested, and carried out, for determining whether we now reside within such a system. The result will give us an opportunity to reflect on the insights available from ancient philosophies and finally to answer the question with another aphorism.
Author BioHugh Matlock is a software architect and independent researcher. He became a programmer in high school and enjoyed simulating Conway’s Game of Life in 1972 and Von Neumann’s self-reproducing universal constructor the next year. He later managed the New Architecture Group at The Source designing and implementing online services. After over thirty years as a professional software developer and entrepreneur, he has been engaged in independent research for the last decade. He has a B.A. in Mathematics from Dartmouth College.
Download Essay PDF File
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 10:22 GMT
Dear Matlock,
Your idea of software simulation of Cosmos is good. Did you formulate any model ? I also work on Dynamic universe Model, for which some details you can find in questions of this essay also.......
I am requesting you to go through my essay. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly...
view entire post
Dear Matlock,
Your idea of software simulation of Cosmos is good. Did you formulate any model ? I also work on Dynamic universe Model, for which some details you can find in questions of this essay also.......
I am requesting you to go through my essay. 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
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:31 GMT
Hi Satyavarapu,
You wrote:
> Your idea of software simulation of Cosmos is good. Did you formulate any model ?
Thanks, I am glad you liked the idea. While I have not implemented the full software cosmos picture described in the body of the essay, I have calculated models of the grid structure described at the end.
You also said:
> And I take this...
view entire post
Hi Satyavarapu,
You wrote:
> Your idea of software simulation of Cosmos is good. Did you formulate any model ?
Thanks, I am glad you liked the idea. While I have not implemented the full software cosmos picture described in the body of the essay, I have calculated models of the grid structure described at the end.
You also said:
> And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
When I started studying cosmology about 15 years ago I spent a couple of years just reading papers on arXiv.org and concluded that there were many lovely theories, and many excellent mathematicians, but a paucity of data to decide between them. To take gravity as an example, my citation database eventually included about 100 distinct theories of gravity, most of which are still actively investigated.
So when I began my own research program in 2001, I resolved to start by gathering observational data rather than coming up with yet another theory, or even committing to one or another of the theoretical approaches then in fashion. Because of my professional background in software engineering, I had some idea of how the cosmos might appear if indeed it were all a simulation. The Landscape Test that I describe in the essay is a statistical test based on (conceptually) simple measurements; in other words, on direct observational evidence. While this evidence conflicts with a materialistic view, it is quite consistent with the software cosmos picture I describe in the essay.
Aloha,
Hugh
view post as summary
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Hugh,
I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies.
Dynamic Universe model is the model I formulated with God's grace.
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/
It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.
I think we form a...
view entire post
Dear Hugh,
I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies.
Dynamic Universe model is the model I formulated with God's grace.
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/
It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.
I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.
Now in this context, can we create material from information...?
You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 12:52 GMT
Hi Hugh,
I liked your essay (I was in the IT industry but not a programmer).
I have developped a theory of the Universe that you could easily reproduce with a program (there are only two rules to follow).
You might want to take a look at my essay and if you like it (you never know !), you are welcome to try to simulate it with a program. You can also find the complete theory...
view entire post
Hi Hugh,
I liked your essay (I was in the IT industry but not a programmer).
I have developped a theory of the Universe that you could easily reproduce with a program (there are only two rules to follow).
You might want to take a look at my
essay and if you like it (you never know !), you are welcome to try to simulate it with a program. You can also find the complete theory here:
3D Universe Theory.
Cheers,
Patrick
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:40 GMT
Hi Patrick,
Thanks, glad you liked the essay.
I looked at your 3D Universe Theory paper, but I have to confess I did not understand it. One problem I had was with the formulae you give: while the numbers you compute are close to important physical quantities, most of those quantities are not pure numbers and so the formulae do not stand up to dimensional analysis.
Your...
view entire post
Hi Patrick,
Thanks, glad you liked the essay.
I looked at your 3D Universe Theory paper, but I have to confess I did not understand it. One problem I had was with the formulae you give: while the numbers you compute are close to important physical quantities, most of those quantities are not pure numbers and so the formulae do not stand up to
dimensional analysis.
Your overall approach, however, reminds me of efforts to find cellular automata whose operation can account for the observed laws of physics. There is a nice theory by Edward Fredkin that he calls Digial Philosophy, which you can read about (including how he handles units consistently) here:
Introduction to Digital Philosophy.
Aloha,
Hugh
view post as summary
Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi Hugh,
Thank you for your comments. If you downloaded my theory from viXra then you did not have the page explaining the way I redefined the dimensions, it is explained
here.
It is quite extraordinary at first but it makes sense if you follow my theory.
Thank you for the link to DP, I will take a look.
Cheers,
Patrick
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 20:16 GMT
Hi Patrick,
You might want to look at how Peter Rowlands combines the different fundamental parameters (length, time, mass, and charge) in A Foundational Approach to Physics. Notice that he specifies scaling constants to combine them.
I noticed that the infinite sum you use for some of your formulas can be expressed more simply (see geometric series for the derivation).
Using...
view entire post
Hi Patrick,
You might want to look at how Peter Rowlands combines the different fundamental parameters (length, time, mass, and charge) in
A Foundational Approach to Physics. Notice that he specifies scaling constants to combine them.
I noticed that the infinite sum you use for some of your formulas can be expressed more simply (see
geometric series for the derivation).
Using ep = 8pi -1, then the sum is ep + 1/(ep-1)
Using p = 8pi, then the sum is (p + (p-1)(p-3))/(p-2)
Perhaps this will help you.
It is sometimes hard to tell when a numerical relationship is more than a coincidence, and there have been
others who have done searches to try to find new relationships.
Aloha,
Hugh
view post as summary
Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 16:19 GMT
Hi Hugh,
Thank you for the link. Interesting to see how other people are trying to redefine dimensions. I go a bit further than Peter in the sense that I reduce everything to Time or Length.
Thank you also for the geometric series but I preferred to leave my formulae in that form to show the 8Pi-1. Already, in that form, a majority of mainstream physicists will call it numerology, so if I start putting 8Pi-2, that would be even worse.
Cheers,
Patrick
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Hugh
Hopefully "This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right" so that we no longer have a headache because of the questions that remain to be answered - also had from very ancient times - but in the fact is we seeing a very different conclusion.
To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of...
view entire post
Dear Hugh
Hopefully "This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right" so that we no longer have a headache because of the questions that remain to be answered - also had from very ancient times - but in the fact is we seeing a very different conclusion.
To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :
THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT
1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?
The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.
The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.
B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?
It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .
C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?
Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.
D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?
The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.
E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?
To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:
2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :
“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”
That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.
I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.
Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.
To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com
Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.
Hải.Caohoàng
Add another problem, which is:
USE OF THE EQUATIONS AND FORMULA IN ESSAY
There have been some comments to me to questions is: why in my essay did not use the equations and formulas to interpret?
The reason is:
1. The currently equations and formulas are not able to solve all problems for all concerned that they represent.
2. Through research, I found: The application of the equations and formulas when we can not yet be determined the true nature of the problem will create new problems - there is even more complex and difficult to resolve than the original.
I hope so that : you will sympathetic and consideration to avoid misunderstanding my comments.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:51 GMT
Hi Hoang,
Thanks for your comment. I imagine that there will always be new questions that remain to be answered... but perhaps it does not have to result in headaches, as you say.
Aloha,
Hugh
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:06 GMT
Hugh,
If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
Mr Matlock,
I am deeply in your debt. Please allow me to respond to the John Wheeler quote: “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful that when we grasp it – in a decade, a century, or a millennium – we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?”
The time has come. The only yes/no question Wheeler should have...
view entire post
Mr Matlock,
I am deeply in your debt. Please allow me to respond to the John Wheeler quote: “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful that when we grasp it – in a decade, a century, or a millennium – we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?”
The time has come. The only yes/no question Wheeler should have asked was:
Is the real Universe simple? And the only sensible answer is “Yes”
Reality cannot be simplified below the point of it being simple; therefore, any explanation of reality must be complicated and unrealistic.
The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.
One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real “speed” of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.
Life is the absolute of understanding. An real ant understands that it is a real ant existing in a real simple ant’s universe. Man prefers to deal in complex abstract choices rather than reality.
Joe
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 10:55 GMT
Hello Hugh,
Excellent essay, happy to read it. You brought a good quote John Wheeler "In any field find the strangest thing and then explore it." There is nothing more strange in the observable world than dialectic "coincidence of opposites." What kind of opposites? Basic contradictions of the Universe (rest and motion, continuity and discontinuity, symmetry and asymmetry ...) that need to...
view entire post
Hello Hugh,
Excellent essay, happy to read it. You brought a good quote John Wheeler "In any field find the strangest thing and then explore it." There is nothing more strange in the observable world than dialectic "coincidence of opposites." What kind of opposites? Basic contradictions of the Universe (rest and motion, continuity and discontinuity, symmetry and asymmetry ...) that need to find a simple mathematical model and signs. You are absolutely right drew attention to many of the many ancient traditions. And what ancient image of the foundation of the world: the three pillars ... three elephants ... which keeps terra firma ...
Why do not you focused on the category "memory"? For «software paradigm» this is very important. Memory - is the center. You yourself say about her and "the key lies in your last sentence,« We can hope, as he surely would, that that inheritance, and the knowledge of the "sacred hoops" it holds, can help us come to "live together like one being "as Black Elk described so beautifully.» The direction of your research, your ideas are very interesting. But it is necessary to use a very sharp Occam's razor to drop the "essence" that prevent build the basic model of the world on the basis of the new paradigm. Excellent rating. See my essay, your opinion on the introduction of a picture of the world with the «ontological memory». I do not know physics, but programmers, information workers need to take «OntoMemory» - a bang ... With best wishes and regards, Vladimir ...
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 11:27 GMT
A very interesting line of research: "Geocosmology at present may best be considered a philosophy or a proto-science rather than a science or religion. As it matures, perhaps it can form a bridge between these two great traditions." http://geocosmology.com/
But I think that in the search for warping need to use all the accumulated knowledge of mankind ... And your opinion? My direction I called - Ontitopologiya ... Nowhere did he find your post ...
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
I'm sorry: OntoTopoLogia http://www.ontotopology.ru/eng_st.php
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 00:55 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
Thank you for your insightful comments. Regarding these:
1. "There is nothing more strange in the observable world than dialectic "coincidence of opposites.""
In the Software Cosmos, the explicate world and implicate world can be thought of as opposites, or better yet, as two opposite sides of the same coin. When conducting the transformation from implicate to...
view entire post
Hi Vladimir,
Thank you for your insightful comments. Regarding these:
1. "There is nothing more strange in the observable world than dialectic "coincidence of opposites.""
In the Software Cosmos, the explicate world and implicate world can be thought of as opposites, or better yet, as two opposite sides of the same coin. When conducting the transformation from implicate to explicate space, we use the antipode (i.e. opposite) of the point of observation as the point of projection. This point of projection itself is excluded from the projection, so we never see our antipode (opposite), but it may be thought of as the "horizon" beyond (and surrounding) everything we can see.
2. "And what ancient image of the foundation of the world: the three pillars ... three elephants ... which keeps terra firma ..."
The common image behind World Elephant, World Turtle and World Serpent is that of a curved surface supporting the Earth.
Shesha, the Hindu World Serpent, is said to hold all planets on its many hoods. I take this as a symbol of gravity, which is generated from the curvature of implicate space.
3. the category "memory"
Memory in the Software Cosmos is composed of quaternionic values. This type of memory is used both the representation of local state, and also for the global structure. The S3 hypersphere that turns up several times
corresponds to the unit quaternions. So quaternionic values can be used to index structures that contain quaternionic information.
Recent biological
research is casting doubt on the idea that memory is based on some form of physical encoding in the brain. A
quote from Pythagoras hints that quaternions may constitute our own memory systems: "I swear it by him who has transmitted into our souls the Sacred Quaternion, the source of nature, whose cause is eternal."
4. drop the "essence"
Not sure what you mean here.
5. "But I think that in the search for warping need to use all the accumulated knowledge of mankind ... And your opinion?"
Such a project would require much more that I could cover in the nine pages we had for the essay. Much of that "accumulated knowledge" is symbolic, which is open to multiple variant interpretations. It is difficult to travel this symbolic landscape without some kind of map... but I find that as I work on my mathematical map, many traditions become more clear and more coherent with each other. I hold out hope that Black Elk's epiphany will become just common sense.
Aloha,
Hugh
view post as summary
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 09:15 GMT
Hi Hugh,
1. I'm talking about the coincidence of opposites in the spirit of Nicholas of Cusa: «coincidentia oppositorum» - minimum and maximum.
2. The ancient images of the "three elephants" and "three pillars" tells us about the idea of the trinity foundation of the world.
3. The introduction of the category "memory" as central to the new paradigm requires the disclosure...
view entire post
Hi Hugh,
1. I'm talking about the coincidence of opposites in the spirit of Nicholas of Cusa: «coincidentia oppositorum» - minimum and maximum.
2. The ancient images of the "three elephants" and "three pillars" tells us about the idea of the trinity foundation of the world.
3. The introduction of the category "memory" as central to the new paradigm requires the disclosure of its essence, which is a measure of being the world as a whole, ie, the most fundamental structure of the world. That is an ontological memory - a fundamental structural memory.
4. I would like to say that phrase that for modeling of the fundamental structure of the world must enter at least the entity that is used not just a poignant and very "sharp" Occam's razor ..
5. Here I fully agree with you, but I just wanted to focus on the fact that the synthesis of the knowledge necessary to use all the knowledge accumulated by mankind.
My comments are not a criticism, just a friendly like-minded dialogue that go together in the same direction.
Thank you for your comment on my forum. Hugh, you have already put my rating essay? Someone last night lowered my rating ... I appreciated your ideas happy a nine. Sincerely, Vladimir.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 17:34 GMT
Vladimir
1. coincidence of opposites
The Software Cosmos, being finite, probably corresponds to the Cusan concept of "contracted maximum". At first glance no finite system could correspond to his "absolute Maximum". However, software can simulate something similar to the infinite, using a recursive process that opens up more detail below or a larger enclosing space above whenever...
view entire post
Vladimir
1. coincidence of opposites
The Software Cosmos, being finite, probably corresponds to the
Cusan concept of "contracted maximum". At first glance no finite system could correspond to his "absolute Maximum". However, software can simulate something similar to the infinite, using a recursive process that opens up more detail below or a larger enclosing space above whenever required. Thus, the fractal structure of implicate space might enable one to imagine an infinite "chain of being" that extends above and below the physical realms that we can observe. In this sense, we might be able to comprehend the infinite while only being able to observe some finite portion of it, in the spirit of a Cusan "coincidence of opposites".
2. three elephants and three pillars
On reflection, I am not sure that the elephants/pillars are the same as the turtles/snakes in the way they support the world. There are usually four
turtles to support the world, one each in the four cardinal directions.
With both the turtle shell and cobra's hood we have the image, not just of curvature, but of a hemisphere. This has an abstract relationship to the grid model. A grid model composed of nodes linked by great circle arcs has a dual representation (nodes along arcs are dual to arcs crossing at nodes).
The set of arcs is indexed by a hemisphere and so the turtle may represent the grid. The geometric alignments of the grid are preserved over geologic time, so I think it is entirely possible that they can persist after the end of the phenomenal world, as it is said of the
world serpent.
3. rating
I have not rated your essay yet, as I want to read it again first, but I can assure you that you will get a good rating from me. Few people attempt to bring such a wide philosophical and historical outlook to cosmological questions and I agree that it is important.
Yesterday I took the time to read all 183 abstracts and select 20% for further study. My plan is to read a few more and then start rating them.
Hugh
view post as summary
Philip Gibbs wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 10:35 GMT
Hugh, this essay presents a gerat combination of ideas.
The concept of the universe as a computer has always intrigued me although I see it as an emergent process rather than an ontological principle. I like that you tackle so many unsolved cosmological problems as well as leaning on the work of Bohm, Finkelstein etc.
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 06:27 GMT
Thanks, I am delighted that you liked it.
It has been a surprise to me how few essays treat the issues in observational cosmology. I have found only about a dozen possibilities among the 183 essay abstracts.
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 19:25 GMT
Hello Hugh,
Thanks for your comments on my blog. I will certainly take a look at your essay and the links in the next few days and engage you in some dialectic. I will be rating all essays with a digital inclination high including yours as I feel thats the way to go. Before I come back here, can you take a look at the below 4 simple questions, which I will be asking a few others:
"If...
view entire post
Hello Hugh,
Thanks for your comments on my blog. I will certainly take a look at your essay and the links in the next few days and engage you in some dialectic. I will be rating all essays with a digital inclination high including yours as I feel thats the way to go. Before I come back here, can you take a look at the below 4 simple questions, which I will be asking a few others:
"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…
1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?
2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?
3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?
Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons
4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"
Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.
Best regards,
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:48 GMT
Hi Hugh,
A great essay! The only thing is that you tried to cover too many phenomena. I would have wanted you to concentrate on one or two. A lot of beautiful ideas you have.
I would have for example wanted you to discuss more on dynamics. For example, as you may know the current model for motion is based on the assumption that space is infinitely divisible. That is the premise used...
view entire post
Hi Hugh,
A great essay! The only thing is that you tried to cover too many phenomena. I would have wanted you to concentrate on one or two. A lot of beautiful ideas you have.
I would have for example wanted you to discuss more on dynamics. For example, as you may know the current model for motion is based on the assumption that space is infinitely divisible. That is the premise used to resolve Zeno's Dichotomy argument and other paradoxes. Suppose that premise is false, for example if there is a Planck limit, what next? Do you have a program for digital motion?
Some have taken offence to my 4 questions above. No harm is meant by it.
Expect a good rating!
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
I was not offended by your questions, but I had some difficulty with them, as I was not quite sure what your unstated assumptions were. For example, were we to assume that we had not taken the million dollars out during the day? Was this to be taken as an analogue for a quantum experiment or just a philosophical question about the macroscopic world? Anyway, I thought I might...
view entire post
Hi Akinbo,
I was not offended by your questions, but I had some difficulty with them, as I was not quite sure what your unstated assumptions were. For example, were we to assume that we had not taken the million dollars out during the day? Was this to be taken as an analogue for a quantum experiment or just a philosophical question about the macroscopic world? Anyway, I thought I might answer with some humor to help make clear the context in which I take the questions.
> "If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...
1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?
Yes, assuming I forgot to take it to the bank once again.
> 2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?
No, to elicit information about the cosmos, I need some form of participation. But this could be indirect. In the example, I might draw the same conclusion by looking in the mirror or recalling that pricey lunch.
> 3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?
Yes, especially to my creditors
> 4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"
Yes for some
kinds of "its" at some levels of description, but not for others. Consider the difficulty a snowball might have in determining the facts of its own existence: At what point does a melting snowball cease to exist and the puddle it forms come into being? When did it come into existence in the first place?
So I end with a question for you:
5) Do we exist because surely we are thinking, or are we all snowballs that just think we are thinking?
Hugh
view post as summary
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 23:09 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
You wrote:
> A great essay! The only thing is that you tried to cover too many phenomena.
I know, my first draft was 30 pages and a lot had to go to get it down to 9 pages. But one of the things I wanted to do with the essay is describe a kind of top-down picture. Many people work from the bottom up, extending their favorite theory, and the question I always have...
view entire post
Hi Akinbo,
You wrote:
> A great essay! The only thing is that you tried to cover too many phenomena.
I know, my first draft was 30 pages and a lot had to go to get it down to 9 pages. But one of the things I wanted to do with the essay is describe a kind of top-down picture. Many people work from the bottom up, extending their favorite theory, and the question I always have in the back of my mind is "suppose they are right... does it really help?" So I wanted to describe a picture that may or may not be right but at least has a chance because it actually addresses the major observational issues.
Most of my work has been on the observational side. I only started putting together the theoretical picture this year. So I see the first part mainly as providing a motivation for why anyone would seriously ask whether the Earth's topography had a geometric structure. I think it does because I have spent a lot of time calculating statistics on non-public data. But even with publicly available sources you can derive suggestive statistics, as I describe. So it is a falsifiable idea.
With this article, I wanted to start developing a compatible context (virtual worlds and so on). The problem is that a grid structure for topography undermines a lot of geoscience, even as it confirms ancient views. I suspect it will make specialists unhappy, and I wanted to have a wider context available to enhance understanding and acceptance.
> I would have for example wanted you to discuss more on dynamics...
My view is that a computational universe has to be discrete. As I described in the question from Mikalai Birukou (below), I divide gravity into two effects. The Newtonian gravity component can be combined with electromagnetism to have a field that can be used computationally to give classical results.
I found in Ken Wharton's essay a useful idea (his 4D links) for conducting computations that provide quantum effects. I plan to make a posting over there to discuss my ideas with him.
> Do you have a program for digital motion?
I have started working on a simulator for the theory. I do not really believe my own theories until I have simulated them. :)
> Expect a good rating!
Thanks so much!
Hugh
view post as summary
Mikalai Birukou wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:08 GMT
Hugh,
You talk about Dark Matter, as if we know what it is. Check MOND. First observation of spiral galaxies let to suggestion of MOND (slight change on gravity equations). Recently guys reported that observations of elliptical galaxies are in line with MOND.
From a practical point, when doing simulation, it would be computationally cheeper to use MOND corrections, then adding new...
view entire post
Hugh,
You talk about Dark Matter, as if we know what it is. Check MOND. First observation of spiral galaxies let to suggestion of MOND (slight change on gravity equations). Recently guys reported that observations of elliptical galaxies are in line with MOND.
From a practical point, when doing simulation, it would be computationally cheeper to use MOND corrections, then adding new type of matter (like luminiferous aether). Unfortunately, MOND corrections are at scalar, or Newtonian gravity level, and there is no good tensor MOND, in the spirit of Einstein's equivalence principle.
Do you think you have enough fingers to count all suggested candidates for dark matter that were supposed to show up at LHC, and DIDN'T show?
By the way, Dark Energy is an addition of one constant in Einstein's equation. It is called cosmological constant. And its presence, like MOND, might be a sign that GR must be tweaked a tiny bit for he long-range (galaxies, universe).
Cheers,
Mikalai
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 17:01 GMT
Hi Mikalai,
You wrote:
> You talk about Dark Matter, as if we know what it is.
I apologise, I did not mean to. I know some people "search" for dark matter, expecting to find some kind of new particle or something larger that can explain the observations. They assume that GR must be correct and so the observations must be mistaken. To me, "Dark Matter" is just a way of...
view entire post
Hi Mikalai,
You wrote:
> You talk about Dark Matter, as if we know what it is.
I apologise, I did not mean to. I know some people "search" for dark matter, expecting to find some kind of new particle or something larger that can explain the observations. They assume that GR must be correct and so the observations must be mistaken. To me, "Dark Matter" is just a way of referring to the observational evidence that GR is not a good theory at the galactic scale.
> Check MOND.
I am familiar with MOND, and very much appreciate how well it works at the galactic level. As you suggest, from a practical point of view it is the better theory. The difficulty I have with MOND is how to fit the formula into a larger theoretical narrative. In the essay, I was taking a top-down view and mentioning mainly ideas that seemed they could fit into my picture.
> By the way, Dark Energy is an addition of one constant in Einstein's equation.
Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban and Leonard Susskind wrote a nice paper some years ago called
Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant that goes into the reasons that it does not work.
Of course, we had only nine pages for the essay and so sections that deserved better had to be summarized in a sentence. But I assure you that I am not wedded to the "consensus cosmology" that these terms mean something real. My list of puzzles Lambda CDM has not explained has over 150 entries and my list of alternative theories of gravity has 95 entries.
Hugh
view post as summary
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 21:28 GMT
The starting point for my picture of gravity is Gauge Theory Gravity. David Hestenes has described GTG as "mathematically equivalent" to General Relativity in his article Gauge Theory Gravity with Geometric Calculus but he shows many ways in which it is easier to use than GR.
Its usefulness to me is that it is formulated in a flat space (and proper time) and the equation of motion of a...
view entire post
The starting point for my picture of gravity is Gauge Theory Gravity. David Hestenes has described GTG as "mathematically equivalent" to General Relativity in his article
Gauge Theory Gravity with Geometric Calculus but he shows many ways in which it is easier to use than GR.
Its usefulness to me is that it is formulated in a flat space (and proper time) and the equation of motion of a particle due to another can be written as the sum of a Newtonian force and the deviation due to GR. (See section VI.A and equation 215 of the article).
The Newtonian portion of the effect is a central force and so the combined effects of all particles can be super-posed into a conserved
field. This allows an efficient parallel calculation of its dynamics.
The GR deviation, or second term in equation (215), is the contribution from angular momentum, and I consider the effect of this separately. My interpretation (and here is where I differ from GTG and GR) is that this term (considered as a combined effect from all other particles) can be computed from the global properties of an implicate 3-sphere structure.
This contribution can be responsible for the gravitational influence known as "Dark Matter" since it does not depend solely on the "contents" of the implicate space, but on its size (i.e.curvature) and spin. In a way, this can be considered a "modified Newtonian" theory. Whether it is better or worse than Milgromian MOND remains to be seen, but at least it is part of my larger narrative.
view post as summary
john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Hugh -
Your exposition of a computer simulation of the Cosmos is highly interesting, and brings into focus our relationship, and the relation of mathematics, to the Cosmos.
The implicate and explicate orders you deal with can be considered from different perspectives, of course. I think ultimately we are dealing with a cosmos composed of different but correlated dimensional...
view entire post
Dear Hugh -
Your exposition of a computer simulation of the Cosmos is highly interesting, and brings into focus our relationship, and the relation of mathematics, to the Cosmos.
The implicate and explicate orders you deal with can be considered from different perspectives, of course. I think ultimately we are dealing with a cosmos composed of different but correlated dimensional zones. I was interested by how you deal with this, especially when considering quasars, dark matter, and dark energy.
One way or another, all these phenomena describe the boundaries of our space-time based parameters, and push us into expanding them.
I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer while describing a quantum/classical world correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics.
We are continually realizing that the Cosmos does indeed 'appear “fine-tuned” to develop life,' as you say. Unlike you, however, my focus is not on the mathematics of the Cosmos, but rather on the evolutionary correlation of both observer and Cosmos, and the deducible effects of this continuous correlation.
I submit that it is in this area that our key assumptions must be reconsidered: And is not the historical expansion of mathematics into the field of reality a phenomenon that must also precisely describe the evolution of the human mind within that field?
I very much liked your phrasing - “It from Bit and Bit from Us” - and can only add that the 'us' is evolving: I show that incorporating evolution into physics expands the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler; indeed, the interaction of It and Bit is one of continuous and simultaneous shifts - or more precisely, of correlation.
We will always be playing with the borders; they will never be fixed and permanent.
We will indeed find the ancients were right - in fact, a Vortex System of energy fields as I describe it shows that evolution is recursive, and that even facts vanish and re-appear over long periods of time.
Your essay certainly made me focus on what we might achieve with computer simulations in the near future, something that is often unfairly derided. I rated your essay accordingly, and hope you'll soon visit my page and share your insights.
All the best,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 00:38 GMT
Hi John,
You wrote:
> I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer while describing a quantum/classical world correlation.
The S3 structure that I kept finding does look like a vortex in perspective.
> The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels...
view entire post
Hi John,
You wrote:
> I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer while describing a quantum/classical world correlation.
The S3 structure that I kept finding does look like a vortex in perspective.
> The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics.
I think that our inner world is a kind of reflection of the outer world. As the one evolves, so does the other.
> We will indeed find the ancients were right - in fact, a Vortex System of energy fields as I describe it shows that evolution is recursive, and that even facts vanish and re-appear over long periods of time.
The classical view is that the state of the system at any point in time can determine the system at other points in time. I do not think that is a good model for the world we live in, which seems to me to be one of continual forgetting and continual learning. Take the example of history and archaeology. Every year we loose information about the past, as stories and records are lost by death or disintegration. Yet every year we make archaeological discoveries, learning more and more about past cultures.
> Your essay certainly made me focus on what we might achieve with computer simulations in the near future, something that is often unfairly derided. I rated your essay accordingly, and hope you'll soon visit my page and share your insights.
Thanks... I will take a look.
Hugh
view post as summary
john stephan selye replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 12:53 GMT
Great - I am indeed very curious to see what you think once you've read my essay. I very much look forward to hearing from you.
John
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 02:30 GMT
Dear Hugh,
Congratulations for writing this engaging essay about how to go about simulating the Universe. It took me some time to read your essay : you discussed many mathematical tools such as Geometric Algebra and permutations of known theories in physics that I was not familiar with. I kept going to Wikipedia and other articles to get a sense of what you were saying!
The role of...
view entire post
Dear Hugh,
Congratulations for writing this engaging essay about how to go about simulating the Universe. It took me some time to read your essay : you discussed many mathematical tools such as Geometric Algebra and permutations of known theories in physics that I was not familiar with. I kept going to Wikipedia and other articles to get a sense of what you were saying!
The role of the observer is stressed in Special Relativity and in the Copenhagen interpretation, and in Bohm's "explicate orders" if I understood that correctly. You take this role for granted and search for a software to represent it. When there is a will there is a way, and mathematics is so accommodating and can eventually describe any physical theory thrown at it. The question is - is'nt there a simpler way - one i which the Universe 'works' whether there is an observer or not?
I believe there is and have started to explore it in my
Beautiful Universe Theory also found
here. I lack your skill as mathematician and programmer, but will try to explore this new starting point for physics (also explored in my last year's "Fix Physics!"I will now attempt to answer the more specific issues you raised in your interesting note on my
my essay The Cloud of Unknowing .
I wish you all the best.
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 22:22 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
I went through your Beautiful Universe Theory web page briefly, and what I saw was lovely, and I think, generally consonant with my own views. After the contest I will go back and study it in detail, but it appears to be consistent with a computational approach that defines an "architectural layer" for the physical world. In other words, your "nodes" are the "pixels" in a...
view entire post
Hi Vladimir,
I went through your Beautiful Universe Theory web page briefly, and what I saw was lovely, and I think, generally consonant with my own views. After the contest I will go back and study it in detail, but it appears to be consistent with a computational approach that defines an "architectural layer" for the physical world. In other words, your "nodes" are the "pixels" in a simulated world such as I describe. However, there may be a philosophical difference in our views, as I think the simulation paradigm can reach below the material level of reality.
Complex hardware and software systems are usually layered, with each layer interface defined by an "architectural contract" that sets the rules that a lower layer must implement, and that an upper layer can depend on. Upper layers have little information on how lower layers operate (upper layers know only the architectural contract, not the implementation details). Yet upper layers are completely dependent on the lower layers for their operations.
Lower layers, by contrast, are informed when upper layers do something. They are responsible for carrying out the orders of the upper layers, and so they need to know what is ordered, if not why.
We can use the word "animate" to refer to the operation of a lower layer that provides the operations in support a higher layer of computation. In this sense, physical computers "animate" a virtual world like Second Life. They provide all the calculations that move things around in that world. The "architectural contract" here are the laws of physics for Second Life.
As regards our physical world, the conventional view is that Matter is the foundation, and that Life and later, Mind emerges from that substrate. In other words, Matter animates Life and Life animates Mind.
I would suggest, rather, that Life animates Matter instead of Matter animating Life. Likewise, I think that Mind animates Life and Spirit animates Mind. Defining what these intuitions mean mathematically is a research project, but posing the question in terms of software design allows us to take a new approach to an old philosophical question.
Hugh
view post as summary
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 07:52 GMT
Dear Hugh,
I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, 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
Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 13:16 GMT
Hugh,
WOW, I must say I truly appreciated your objective and analytical approach to the topic at hand! The fact that you are a software developer I also find intriguing since I, and several physicists interested in the findings of my work, are looking into developing new algorithms to apply this new paradigm.
When you get the chance, I would appreciate if you could review my essay and let me know if you would be interested in further discussions. My email address is on the essay:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809
Regards,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT
Hugh,
I am pleased that my high rating of your essay (10) has helped move your well deserved essay up in the community standings. I was wondering if you had the time to review my essay, and if so, return my rating of your essay in kind if you see fit to do so.
Best wishes,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 14:13 GMT
Hugh,
Thank you for stopping by my essay page and for your comments. I will reply to them soon. I have noticed that you have chosen not reciprocated my support of your essay. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that your essay should make it to the finals and I wish you the best of luck in the competition.
Regards,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 22:36 GMT
Hi Manuel,
I have not voted on any essays yet. My planned procedure is to read as many as I can, then rank them and allow myself (say) one 10, two 9s, three 8s, and so on. Is there a way to tell what rating other community members have given you?
Hugh
Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 01:11 GMT
Hugh,
You asked, "Is there a way to tell what rating other community members have given you?"
Yes and No. What I have found out so far is that as your rating and the number times it has been rated increases, the higher the rating needs to be in order increase someone's rating. However, this rating system is designed for entrants to cut throat each other by rating each other low instead of preventing such underhanded activity. What I find unfortunate about this system is that it makes science look petty and opinionated instead of being based on objectivity based on empirical standards.
If you feel that you cannot return my high rating of your essay (you can email me for what that was - msm@physicsofdestiny.com), then I humbly ask that you do not rate it at all. I like to keep thing positive. So the way I see it, no harm - no foul.
Best wishes,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 01:41 GMT
Hello Hugh,
I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire...
view entire post
Hello Hugh,
I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.
I work around geometry, which is why I liked the fractal approach. I've partly unified the four forces of nature using a geometric approach (not in my essay), which also resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. Interesting that you point out the mass of the Proton from modelling it as a geometric Black Hole. My model geometrically links the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of prediction. Further, as the data for these masses has been refined over the last few years, the result has improved constantly.
In my essay you might like the Fibonacci approach. You mentioned Software and Hardware - maybe the Fibonacci sequence is the firmware.....?
Anyway, well done for producing what I consider to be one of the best essays in the contest. Top marks from me!
Best wishes for the contest!
Antony
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 01:43 GMT
Hello Hugh,
I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire...
view entire post
Hello Hugh,
I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.
I work around geometry, which is why I liked the fractal approach. I've partly unified the four forces of nature using a geometric approach (not in my essay), which also resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. Interesting that you point out the mass of the Proton from modelling it as a geometric Black Hole. My model geometrically links the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of prediction. Further, as the data for these masses has been refined over the last few years, the result has improved constantly.
In my essay you might like the Fibonacci approach. You mentioned Software and Hardware - maybe the Fibonacci sequence is the firmware.....?
Anyway, well done for producing what I consider to be one of the best essays in the contest. Top marks from me!
Best wishes for the contest!
Antony
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 10:11 GMT
Hi Antony,
Thanks so much for your comments. You wrote:
> I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.
I very much agree with you, in cosmology particularily we need generalists and philosophers as well as...
view entire post
Hi Antony,
Thanks so much for your comments. You wrote:
> I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.
I very much agree with you, in cosmology particularily we need generalists and philosophers as well as theoretical specialists. Otherwise I think it can be difficult for specialists to tell the difference between anomalies that are part of the normal unknowns of science and those that indicate that the foundational assumptions of a given approach must be wrong.
> In my essay you might like the Fibonacci approach. You mentioned Software and Hardware - maybe the Fibonacci sequence is the firmware.....?
Yes, I think something like that is happening. A large scale software system is divided into layers, with architectural boundaries defined by interfaces. Below each boundary is the implementation of the interface, and above the users of it.
To make best sense of the cosmos, I think that we must place the layers as follows: Mind is below (and animates) Life which is below (and animates) Matter. It is in the definition of the Life layer that the Fibonacci sequence plays an important role, and it is this layer which is the foundation for, not only Life, but music and art as well. These pre-exist and form the foundation for the material world.
> Anyway, well done for producing what I consider to be one of the best essays in the contest. Top marks from me!
Thanks again!
Hugh
view post as summary
Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 14:21 GMT
Hi Hugh,
My pleasure. You deserved a great score for a great essay. Thanks for the comments over on my page. I've replied.
Best wishes for the contest,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Hugh,
Great essay. Fascinating to see a view from a software architect. Also relevant, original, well written, and arranged, so all boxes ticked.
Your comments on Bell interested me as I construct an ontology via a 3D geometry with motion leading to a resolution of the EPR paradox with no FTL, as vo Neumann proposed (the uncertainty emerging at each detector). I'd completely somehow missed Recursive Quantum Gauge Theory it seems, as that seems to parallels and probably precurses my own model. Thank you for that. I'll check it out the moment I stop essay reading!
As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections. Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue. Again I hadn't read the papers you referred and have them piled up!
Thanks for that, and a great essay. Worth a higher mark. I hope you can follow mine and look forward to your comments, particularly on the Bell solution which I believe largely consistent with Joy's.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:11 GMT
Hi Peter,
> As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections.
I have commented on your essay over on your blog. I think that Michel Planat (see below) has drawn an important connection by pointing out that the Hopf fibration links my S3 implicate space and your Intelligent qubit to his work on quantum contextuality.
> Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue.
I will have a look at your previous essays after the contest, as I like your approach to this. I can imagine that there are several connections.
Hugh
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:44 GMT
Hi Peter,
(It appears that the FQXI database has been reset, so I will add my comments again)
> As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections.
I have commented on your essay over on your blog. I think that Michel Planat (see below) has drawn an important connection by pointing out that the Hopf fibration links my S3 implicate space and your Intelligent qubit to his work on quantum contextuality.
> Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue.
I will have a look at your previous essays after the contest, as I like your approach to this. I can imagine that there are several connections.
Hugh
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 07:35 GMT
Dear Hugh,
I have replied to your comments in my thread. I will read your essay and shortly post my comments on it in your thread.
Best wishes,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:45 GMT
Dear Hugh,
The whole theme of your wonderful essay is based on differentiating between two states of human ‘cognition’, implicate and explicate; where implicate represents independent ‘reality’ and explicate represents information from implicate. So information conveys the message about implicate to the mind and mind grasps it as explicate. This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say “Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit”. So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate. Representation of relationship between implicate and explicate on the basis of digital physics constitutes the next task of your article. You have made your essay a readable one by quoting the interesting aphorisms of well-known physicists. The figure of S3 hyper sphere is too good to grasp the essence behind it. But following Joy Christian, when you say S3 hyper sphere follows from parallelized 7-sphere you are not clear because we can visualize the figure of S3 sphere but not so that of 7 sphere. 7 sphere may be mathematically true but not so physically as long as it is made visualizable in the same way as S3 sphere. This was also the objection raised by me in Christian’s FQXI blog the previous year.
Your final conclusion, It from Bit comes as no surprise when you say “the explicate world of It arises from the implicate world of Bit” and you have given, like me, primary importance to mind when you say, “the content of that implicate information world comes from consciousness”.
Thanks for presenting such an interesting essay in an elegant and consistent manner. I have answered to your queries on my essay in my thread.
Best wishes,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:22 GMT
Hi Sreenath,
You wrote:
> This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate.
We might have somewhat different interpretations, but it could depend on what we understand by It and Bit. I think of "It" as representing measurable physical objects,...
view entire post
Hi Sreenath,
You wrote:
> This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate.
We might have somewhat different interpretations, but it could depend on what we understand by It and Bit. I think of "It" as representing measurable physical objects, and "Bit" could be any kind of information. In my simulated computational cosmos, Bit can appear in many guises. The way mind enters the picture I will describe below.
> Representation of relationship between implicate and explicate on the basis of digital physics constitutes the next task of your article.
Yes, I would like to construct digital algorithms that perform this transformation, in order to make the simulation idea more compelling. Several of the other essays have given me ideas for this.
> 7 sphere may be mathematically true but not so physically as long as it is made visualizable in the same way as S3 sphere.
If you are comfortable imagining the S3 sphere, here is a way to construct an S7 sphere: Consider a "mother" S3 sphere, where each point is the center of a "daughter" S3 sphere (i.e. daughters initially have radius 0). Now let the radius of the mother sphere decrease, and have the radius of each daughter sphere increase to compensate, so the sum of mother's radius + daughters' radius is constant.
> Your final conclusion, It from Bit comes as no surprise when you say "the explicate world of It arises from the implicate world of Bit" and you have given, like me, primary importance to mind when you say, "the content of that implicate information world comes from consciousness".
Yes, my idea is that we can describe Mind as a layer of the software architecture below the material layer. The important insight (not included in the essay) is that lower layers of an architecture are in some ways more aware of what is happening than upper layers. This is because each layer is constrained by the layer interface contract and cannot observe what the implementing layers are doing, only their effects (which seem automatic within the layer).
In software terms, the physical laws are an interface contract for an architectural layer. So material objects are constrained to obey physical laws without having any way to examine how or why the laws work.
The conventional materialist view is that Mind is somehow emergent from Matter, which is taken as the "ground of being", i.e. Mind is layered above Matter. But if you construct a "mind" above the material layer you create a
philosophical zombie, whereas if you locate Mind below the material physical layer you find that a mind has attributes that we associate with conscious awareness. I hope to clarify the distinction between these different conceptions of Mind by reference to software architecture. I believe it is possible philosophically to give an account of Mind once you have a story of how the physical world might arise from a software simulation, which is what the essay tries to provide.
> Thanks for presenting such an interesting essay in an elegant and consistent manner.
You are most welcome!
Hugh
view post as summary
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:46 GMT
Hi Sreenath,
(It appears that the FQXI database has been reset, and my comment disappeared; so I will add it again.)
You wrote:
> This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate.
We might have somewhat different interpretations, but it...
view entire post
Hi Sreenath,
(It appears that the FQXI database has been reset, and my comment disappeared; so I will add it again.)
You wrote:
> This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate.
We might have somewhat different interpretations, but it could depend on what we understand by It and Bit. I think of "It" as representing measurable physical objects, and "Bit" could be any kind of information. In my simulated computational cosmos, Bit can appear in many guises. The way mind enters the picture I will describe below.
> Representation of relationship between implicate and explicate on the basis of digital physics constitutes the next task of your article.
Yes, I would like to construct digital algorithms that perform this transformation, in order to make the simulation idea more compelling. Several of the other essays have given me ideas for this.
> 7 sphere may be mathematically true but not so physically as long as it is made visualizable in the same way as S3 sphere.
If you are comfortable imagining the S3 sphere, here is a way to construct an S7 sphere: Consider a "mother" S3 sphere, where each point is the center of a "daughter" S3 sphere (i.e. daughters initially have radius 0). Now let the radius of the mother sphere decrease, and have the radius of each daughter sphere increase to compensate, so the sum of mother's radius + daughters' radius is constant.
> Your final conclusion, It from Bit comes as no surprise when you say "the explicate world of It arises from the implicate world of Bit" and you have given, like me, primary importance to mind when you say, "the content of that implicate information world comes from consciousness".
Yes, my idea is that we can describe Mind as a layer of the software architecture below the material layer. The important insight (not included in the essay) is that lower layers of an architecture are in some ways more aware of what is happening than upper layers. This is because each layer is constrained by the layer interface contract and cannot observe what the implementing layers are doing, only their effects (which seem automatic within the layer).
In software terms, the physical laws are an interface contract for an architectural layer. So material objects are constrained to obey physical laws without having any way to examine how or why the laws work.
The conventional materialist view is that Mind is somehow emergent from Matter, which is taken as the "ground of being", i.e. Mind is layered above Matter. But if you construct a "mind" above the material layer you create a philosophical zombie, whereas if you locate Mind below the material physical layer you find that a mind has attributes that we associate with conscious awareness. I hope to clarify the distinction between these different conceptions of Mind by reference to software architecture. I believe it is possible philosophically to give an account of Mind once you have a story of how the physical world might arise from a software simulation, which is what the essay tries to provide.
> Thanks for presenting such an interesting essay in an elegant and consistent manner.
You are most welcome!
Hugh
view post as summary
Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear Hugh,
Great essay well showing all the interesting maths one needs to improve our understanding of the real world. I hope you will have time to read mine by the end of the game.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789
More comments soon.
A high rate in preparation.
Good luck,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 12:20 GMT
Dear Hughes,
I am quite sensitive to your (software) picture of the cosmos for the following reasons
1) First but not least, I understand it. I already met (not physically except for Carlos Castro and Laurent Noittale) most of authors you refer to.
2) Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.
3) The S3 sphere has several clothes (i) the conformally compactified Minkowski space, as you mention,
(ii) the single qubit (Peter Jackson call it the intelligent qubit!)
as described in quant-ph/0310053, R. Mosseri, "Two and Three Qubits Geometry and Hopf Fibrations"
with the Hopf fibration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopf_fibration
(iv) Dirac Monopole
, just to cite a few.
The Hopf fibration of S3 by great circles S1 and base space S2 is that interests me here.
This is because, in my essay, one important object is S2 (that can be seen as the Bloch sphere, the
Riemann sphere or complex projective line CP1, you can see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1005.1997).
Many Dessins d'enfants (those of genus 0) arise from S2 (say) with three singular points 0,1 and infty.
The idea would be to lift them to S3, through the inverse Hopf map, endowed with three rigidified circles corresponding
to aforementioned singular points. I wonder is such a picture was ever imagined.
This would be an instance of your implicate to explicate projection, I suspect.
Good luck,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:42 GMT
Hi Michel,
You wrote:
> Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.
I am delighted that you appreciate it.
> The S3 sphere has several clothes
Yes, it is quite remarkable how many starring roles S3 has, once you start looking for it. The Hopf fibration is a kind of co-star, whose dance with S3 we are just beginning to appreciate. I...
view entire post
Hi Michel,
You wrote:
> Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.
I am delighted that you appreciate it.
> The S3 sphere has several clothes
Yes, it is quite remarkable how many starring roles S3 has, once you start looking for it. The Hopf fibration is a kind of
co-star, whose dance with S3 we are just beginning to appreciate. I notice that you have written about the Black Hole/qubit correspondence. I am very interested in looking at this after the contest. Perhaps the ideas of software architecture can provide a third avenue for understanding this correspondence.
> Many Dessins d'enfants (those of genus 0) arise from S2 (say) with three singular points 0,1 and infty. The idea would be to lift them to S3, through the inverse Hopf map, endowed with three rigidified circles corresponding to aforementioned singular points.
I think your idea is well worth pursuing, and have put a comment on your blog.
> I wonder is such a picture was ever imagined.
One person who might have imagined this is
Lou Kauffmann, who studies a trefoil knot called
Mereon in the quantum context. Tony Smith has
thought about the Hopf Fibration in the context of his own theory, but I don't think he brought in the Dessins d'Enfants.
> This would be an instance of your implicate to explicate projection, I suspect.
Yes. And while the implicate-explicate projection may be of use to you in studying the quantum scale, your Dessins d'Enfants may be of use to me at larger scales, appearing as the grid structures I study. At the Earth scale, the Hopf fibration from S3 may help explain why calculations of grid structure must be done using an idealized 2-sphere (i.e. taking into account only latitude and longitude of highpoints, not absolute altitude) whereas the actual Earth is not perfectly spherical.
Thank you so much for your comments! They have triggered several useful thoughts.
Hugh
view post as summary
Michel Planat replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 08:34 GMT
Dear Hughes,
I boosted your essay as promised.
"Black Hole/qubit correspondence" you could enter the team if you like.
"Mereon"
Yes, excellent, and it is a good way to see where the knots enter the game.
"Hopf fibrations" we are fully phase-locked.
Your feedback goes even beyond I could anticipate.
I will also answer your questions on my blog.
Good luck,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:50 GMT
Hi Michel,
(It appears that the FQXI database as been reset, as my comments have disappeared. I will add it back in.)
You wrote:
> Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.
I am delighted that you appreciate it.
> The S3 sphere has several clothes
Yes, it is quite remarkable how many starring roles S3 has, once you start...
view entire post
Hi Michel,
(It appears that the FQXI database as been reset, as my comments have disappeared. I will add it back in.)
You wrote:
> Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.
I am delighted that you appreciate it.
> The S3 sphere has several clothes
Yes, it is quite remarkable how many starring roles S3 has, once you start looking for it. The Hopf fibration is a kind of
co-star, whose dance with S3 we are just beginning to appreciate. I notice that you have written about the Black Hole/qubit correspondence. I am very interested in looking at this after the contest. Perhaps the ideas of software architecture can provide a third avenue for understanding.
> Many Dessins d'enfants (those of genus 0) arise from S2 (say) with three singular points 0,1 and infty. The idea would be to lift them to S3, through the inverse Hopf map, endowed with three rigidified circles corresponding to aforementioned singular points.
I think your idea is well worth pursuing, and will put a comment on your blog.
> I wonder is such a picture was ever imagined.
One person who might have imagined this is
Lou Kauffman, who studies a trefoil knot called
Mereon in the quantum context. Tony Smith has
thought about the Hopf Fibration in the context of his own theory, but I don't think he brought in the Dessins d'Enfants.
> This would be an instance of your implicate to explicate projection, I suspect.
Yes. And while the implicate-explicate projection may be of use to you in studying the quantum scale, your Dessin's d'Enfants may be of use to me at larger scales, appearing as the grid structures I study. At the Earth scale, the Hopf fibration from S3 may help explain why calculations of grid structure must be done using an idealized 2-sphere (i.e. taking into account only latitude and longitude of highpoints, not absolute altitude) whereas the actual Earth is not perfectly spherical.
Thank you so much for your comments! They have triggered several useful thoughts.
Hugh
view post as summary
Michel Planat replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
Dear Hugh,
Thank you for the copy of your lost message. Myself I did not save my response but I can give a more complete one soon. While my post (and all others from August 1 to 2) was lost when the administrator did the reset my rate may have been recorded because I am unable to vote again. This is something that has to checked.
I am giving you my personal email for extra discussions concerning a future cooperation.
michel.planat@femto-st.fr
Cheers,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 22:17 GMT
I had saved a copy of your response. Here it is:
--------------------------------
Dear Hughes,
I boosted your essay as promised.
"Black Hole/qubit correspondence" you could enter the team if you like.
"Mereon"
Yes, excellent, and it is a good way to see where the knots enter the game.
"Hopf fibrations" we are fully phase-locked.
Your feedback goes even beyond I could anticipate.
I will also answer your questions on my blog.
Good luck,
Michel
hide replies
Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT
Hello Hugh,
A very high mark to you. Now I do not understand everything you are doing, but in the best Don Quixote fashion you are (going to model reality) modeling reality. Doing this modeling will keep you very honest. Much more honest than John Wheeler, who in my opinion turned physics and a whole bunch of physicists into mystery monger's. Once you have your models in place, try out lambda-hopping as part of your implicit model.
There is something about Calvin and Hobbes that gets real close to reality.
What can you say to Don Quixote but: God be with you!
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 06:05 GMT
Hi Don,
> in the best Don Quixote fashion you are (going to model reality) modeling reality
Yes, exactly.
> Once you have your models in place, try out lambda-hopping as part of your implicit model.
Computer science has a concept of
delayed evaluation that is similar to your lambda-hopping. This plays into the
adaptive mesh refinement that I mention in the essay. But there is also
functional programming which I plan to consider as a result of reading about lambda-hopping.
> What can you say to Don Quixote but: God be with you!
As one Don to another: keep on tilting on!
Hugh
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:52 GMT
Hi Don,
(It appears the FQXI database has been reset as recent comments have disappeared. I will add mine back in.)
> in the best Don Quixote fashion you are (going to model reality) modeling reality
Yes, exactly.
> Once you have your models in place, try out lambda-hopping as part of your implicit model.
Computer science has a concept of
delayed evaluation that is similar to your lambda-hopping. This plays into the
adaptive mesh refinement that I mention in the essay. But there is also
functional programming which I plan to consider as a result of reading about lambda-hopping.
> What can you say to Don Quixote but: God be with you!
As one Don to another: keep on tilting on!
Hugh
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 17:56 GMT
I just wanted to let you know that Software Cosmos is on my Radar..
Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 02:03 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.
If I may, I'd like to...
view entire post
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.
If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.
I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.
There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements – which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.
Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.
This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.
Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.
This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.
However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.
Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.
Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.
The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.
Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.
This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.
Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.
You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.
With many thanks and best wishes,
John
jselye@gmail.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
Hi Hugh,
I found your essay to be deep, insightful, and very well-rounded. In particular, I was struck by your breadth of knowledge of physics combined with your reach outside the field. You are exceptionally articulate and well-rounded.
I also liked the quotes you interspersed throughout. Well done!
I believe you and John Wheeler are correct; we live in a participatory universe of which software is an integral part. For all of these reasons, I give you very high marks!
Best of luck to you!
Sincerely,
Ralph
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 03:00 GMT
Hi Ralph,
Thank you so much for your comment!
As the essay is currently in 36th place in the community rankings, I am not sure it will get to be considered in the next stage, but I hope so.
In any case, the contest has enabled me to learn about some very interesting ideas and has pushed forward my research in several directions. So it has been well worthwhile in any case.
Hugh
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Hugh,
I enjoyed reading your essay. I like how you used Bohm and Hiley's idea of implicate/explicate order. I consider that this idea should be explored in a more general ground that they originally did, and it should be viewed somehow independent. You seem to touch many recent results in building your viewpoint.
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Hi Cristi,
> I enjoyed reading your essay.
Thanks!
> I like how you used Bohm and Hiley's idea of implicate/explicate order. I consider that this idea should be explored in a more general ground that they originally did, and it should be viewed somehow independent.
I always liked their idea, but it seemed to be more of a philosophy than to be attached to a specific mathematical formulation. I was happy to find a use for it in the simulation paradigm. There may be other ways in which their general idea applies.
> You seem to touch many recent results in building your viewpoint.
Observational cosmology is something I like to follow through the arXiv, and I noticed several relevant papers even while I was writing the essay in May.
Many of the theoretical papers and ideas are older. It may be that, in the end, we will find the important ideas have been around for a long time, just awaiting a fresh interpretation and contact with new observational data.
Hugh
Chidi Idika wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 08:41 GMT
Dear Hugh,
Your essay makes extensive "connections" and references but let me focus on your concluding statement:
“The software cosmos picture answers the contest question in this way: “It from Bit and Bit from Us”….This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right and that the cosmos is inherently virtual [THE IT?], holographic [THE BIT?], and fractal [THE US?].”
In square brackets are my questions. They indicate how I can "picture" your elements TOGETHER. This is in so far as we MUST decide whether the "us" is in essence an "it" or "bit" or "both" or "neither".
I take it that the "us" is by definition a SCALE (i.e. fractal) of your implicate/explicate. That being the case I think yours is altogether a mighty useful picture worth my humble high rating.
Now you may try again and see how it fits with my own model, especially that part you quoted in my blog, then you will begin to see what I mean. I'll like you to leave a comment (and rating!)
All the bests,
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 10:45 GMT
Hi Chidi,
You asked about what I had written:
> "The software cosmos picture answers the contest question in this way: "It from Bit and Bit from Us"... This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right and that the cosmos is inherently virtual [THE IT?], holographic [THE BIT?], and fractal [THE US?]."
Here is how I think of these terms: The essay describes...
view entire post
Hi Chidi,
You asked about what I had written:
> "The software cosmos picture answers the contest question in this way: "It from Bit and Bit from Us"... This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right and that the cosmos is inherently virtual [THE IT?], holographic [THE BIT?], and fractal [THE US?]."
Here is how I think of these terms: The essay describes how the physical world [the "It"] might arise from information in a computational simulation [the "Bit"]. As part of this picture, which is analogous to a multi-user video game, we have the game players [the "Us"] each sitting at their screens, viewing and interacting with the simulated world (which they take to be real).
The term "virtual" refers to the software cosmos being a simulated world, the term "holographic" to the projection mechanism involved when observing it, and the term "fractal" to the idea that the simulation is accomplished by a hierarchy of processes.
> This is in so far as we MUST decide whether the "us" is in essence an "it" or "bit" or "both" or "neither".
We can take the term "us" to denote our consciousness, or Mind in general. A very interesting question concerns how to understand our experience of being conscious. I think the model of a software cosmos can be helpful in that philosophical effort.
This is because the software can be divided into layers with different operational rules. In particular, the rules of the physical world do not have to limit the rules of layers beneath the physical. I see the physical world as the upper layer of software, with lower layers the domain of life, mind, and spirit. Agents in each layer "animate" objects in the ones above it in the same way that video game players "animate" their avatars on screen. This closely corresponds to what we feel we are doing when we are consciously moving our physical bodies.
> I take it that the "us" is by definition a SCALE (i.e. fractal) of your implicate/explicate.
In the essay, I mentioned the fractals that we can observe in the physical world. I think that these self-similar structures arise from structures and processes in lower layers of the simulation (not just at the top physical layer). For example, Life has a great many fractal properties (in both space and time).
Mind might also be thought of as a fractal, if we consider that groups of people can act as one. Our usual way of thinking, however, seems to be at a specific level: we identify with our individual consciousness and are aware of it animating our individual physical body.
> That being the case I think yours is altogether a mighty useful picture worth my humble high rating.
Thank you!
> Now you may try again and see how it fits with my own model, especially that part you quoted in my blog, then you will begin to see what I mean. I'll like you to leave a comment (and rating!)
OK I will check to see what you have over there.
Hugh
view post as summary
M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 20:07 GMT
Hugh
thank you for your very interesting, stimulating essay. You show an amazing breadth of knowledge in the area. I even saved your essay on my machine for the future reference. I also looked at your site and read all the posts on this blog -- very interesting! I'm giving you a high rate it deserves.
I answered the 2 questions you asked in my blog and here wanted to discuss an...
view entire post
Hugh
thank you for your very interesting, stimulating essay. You show an amazing breadth of knowledge in the area. I even saved your essay on my machine for the future reference. I also looked at your site and read all the posts on this blog -- very interesting! I'm giving you a high rate it deserves.
I answered the 2 questions you asked in my blog and here wanted to discuss an aspect you bring up in your essay. It has to do with the S3 hypersphere. I know that topologists call it a 4-sphere, emphasizing the 4-dimensionality of the object as a whole, while mathematicians and physicists call it a 3-sphere, being mainly interested in its 3-dimensional surface. Thus you wrote, "Reimann, Gauss, and Clifford believed the shape of the cosmos was a 3-sphere" (and give an interesting reference [12]). It so happens that I too believe that the universe is a 4-sphere ..lol.. I insist on the topological definition of the same object, and for good reasons! Here is why:
...well, I know that the contest comes to the close and maybe you won't have the time to discuss it now.. and so to keep it short:
1. we live in 4 spatial dimensions, while being aware of only 3. I discussed how this can be explained in my last year essay (did not do too good of a job, I'm afraid).
2. we --well, the nuclei of the atoms that comprise us-- are 4-dimensional objects. (I know a big surprise here, which however is explained in the same model). I found excellent references in your essay for all this, but why call a 4D proton a 'black hole'? (this is a rhetorical question pending my looking up the reference you provided).
Of course, my model is not original (I did not know this at first, but already knew it by the time I wrote the last year essay). The novelty I tried to bring was in explaining these... facts of life? in simple terms and vivid analogies so that anyone can get to see it and so agree with the undoubtedly shocking at the first glance statements 1. and 2.
The top-down model of the universe I tried to convey in my last year essay comes down to a 4-sphere (in topological definition) the 3D surface of which is the 'visible universe', i.e. this 3D surface is what EMR is confined to. This makes this surface akin to a 3D screen from which we get all the info. Just like in the Plato's cave, the real 4D objects (ex. protons) exist in.. 'a large extra dimension' speaking in modern terms.. and only cast 'a shadow' or projection on the 3D screen.
For example, this model explains why a nucleus looks so small -- because it 'sits' in an extra dimension and only touches the 3D surface. There are many other implications of this model, explaining some very intriguing cosmological observations.
I wonder, would it be possible, using your Landscape Test, to *prove* that matter is actually 4-dimensional and that we live in a 4D universe, crawling on its 3D surface?
Also, with your amazing knowledge and expertise in this area, where did you see such an explicit description of such a 4D universe model?
The other *proof* I was looking for is that 4-space is unique among all N-spaces (N>2) in the sense that it has the highest degree of all conceivable symmetries. Because this would serve as yet another rationale why our universe is 4D.
Thank you very much again for inviting me to read your very interesting essay. I understand how difficult it was for you to cut it down to 9 pages, after the first 30-page draft -- and yet to took a risk with the last section. Why?
-Marina
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 09:58 GMT
Hi Marina,
You wrote:
> I'm giving you a high rate it deserves.
Thank you!
> I know that topologists call it a 4-sphere, emphasizing the 4-dimensionality of the object as a whole, while mathematicians and physicists call it a 3-sphere, being mainly interested in its 3-dimensional surface.
Yes, I apologise to the topologists. I had to pick one convention or...
view entire post
Hi Marina,
You wrote:
> I'm giving you a high rate it deserves.
Thank you!
> I know that topologists call it a 4-sphere, emphasizing the 4-dimensionality of the object as a whole, while mathematicians and physicists call it a 3-sphere, being mainly interested in its 3-dimensional surface.
Yes, I apologise to the topologists. I had to pick one convention or the other for the essay. Since Wikipedia calls it a 3-sphere I went with that.
> 1. we live in 4 spatial dimensions, while being aware of only 3. I discussed how this can be explained in my last year essay (did not do too good of a job, I'm afraid).
I will have a look at that after the contest.
> I wonder, would it be possible, using your Landscape Test, to *prove* that matter is actually 4-dimensional and that we live in a 4D universe, crawling on its 3D surface?
If the highpoints of the landscape are geometrically aligned (as I suggest the statistics show) then the question is: how is this possible if the points are moving great distances relative to each other, over geologic time?
The simplest answer is that what we are seeing when we look at the familiar 3D world is a projection from a higher dimensional system, akin to Plato's shadows on the cave wall. This is because, when shifting such a geometric projection, cocircularity and coincidence are preserved while position of vertices is not.
You can see an analogy by imagining a wire frame cube (3D) projected by a light source onto a plane (2D). As you rotate the cube, the corners will move around in the 2D image and the lengths of the line segments connecting them will grow and shrink. But the line segments will stay straight and the coincidence of lines at the corners will still be apparent in the 2D image. So if we see a system that behaves like such an image, we can guess that there is a higher dimensional structure behind it.
> Also, with your amazing knowledge and expertise in this area, where did you see such an explicit description of such a 4D universe model?
The model is my own. For many years I have been working on the observational side... getting better and better data related to highpoints, and coaxing the statistical analysis to suggest the underlying geometry. I began seriously thinking about the theoretical side in January this year, and writing the essay in May and June helped me to flesh out the simulation model with supporting papers. I have had a habit of collecting and organizing interesting papers for many years, so I could go to my collection for most of what I needed.
> The other *proof* I was looking for is that 4-space is unique among all N-spaces (N>2) in the sense that it has the highest degree of all conceivable symmetries. Because this would serve as yet another rationale why our universe is 4D.
I think the hypersphere plays an important organizing role, but there are other structures involved. For example, even though any system of great circles is symmetric (the structure at antipodes are mirror images), the Earth itself is not. In fact highpoints do not ever occur at antipodal points. And the cosmos as a whole does not appear to have a mirror symmetry. So there is another geometric factor that breaks such symmetries.
> Thank you very much again for inviting me to read your very interesting essay.
You are quite welcome. Thanks for asking about the Landscape test.
> I understand how difficult it was for you to cut it down to 9 pages, after the first 30-page draft -- and yet to took a risk with the last section. Why?
To me, cosmology is more than what physicists study under the name of "physical cosmology". I felt it was important to remind the reader that the effort to understand our cosmos is very ancient and that traditional views are not, by necessity, wrong. Yet I think the way forward is careful mathematical analysis of observable data, and I hope I have suggested a methodology and a picture that can ultimately reconcile traditional and modern perspectives.
Hugh
view post as summary
M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 06:03 GMT
Hi Hugh
thank you for taking time to answer my questions. I really appreciate it!
In regard to this:
> The other *proof* I was looking for is that 4-space is unique among all N-spaces (N>2) in the sense that it has the highest degree of all conceivable symmetries.
you wrote:
"I think the hypersphere plays an important organizing role, but there are other...
view entire post
Hi Hugh
thank you for taking time to answer my questions. I really appreciate it!
In regard to this:
> The other *proof* I was looking for is that 4-space is unique among all N-spaces (N>2) in the sense that it has the highest degree of all conceivable symmetries.
you wrote:
"I think the hypersphere plays an important organizing role, but there are other structures involved. For example, even though any system of great circles is symmetric (the structure at antipodes are mirror images), the Earth itself is not. In fact highpoints do not ever occur at antipodal points. And the cosmos as a whole does not appear to have a mirror symmetry. So there is another geometric factor that breaks such symmetries."
I'm afraid I meant it in a different context. Here I meant it precisely just as a Euclidean flat 4-space. 4D houses the highest number of regular polytopes (6), while all higher spaces have only 3. Based on this fact and perhaps some others --I'm looking for them-- I want to find a proof that 4D corresponds to the lowest energy state for a... N-dimensional vibrating structure that seeks to conserve its energy. Here dimensionality is one of the properties of this structure -- i.e. it can dynamically be 'compressed' into higher dimensional state or 'relax' by expanding into a lower-dimensional structure/state.
I visualize it as a dynamic vibrating wire frame of N-dimensions, N>4. I believe that if one takes such a N-dimensional structure, undisturbed, it will naturally settle by expanding into a 4D configuration, precisely because, topologically, it offers the highest degree of symmetries.
I wonder if you know where I could find the answer to this :)
Thanks a lot for all your feedback,
-Marina
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Hi Marina,
I am not sure that a lower dimension would provide a more relaxed environment for high-D structures (wouldn't they feel "squashed" by the restriction?), but the lower dimensions seem to provide more opportunities for interesting structures to appear. I can think of some links that might give you some ideas for your research. As far as dimensions go, the ones that get the most...
view entire post
Hi Marina,
I am not sure that a lower dimension would provide a more relaxed environment for high-D structures (wouldn't they feel "squashed" by the restriction?), but the lower dimensions seem to provide more opportunities for interesting structures to appear. I can think of some links that might give you some ideas for your research. As far as dimensions go, the ones that get the most attention seem to be 4, 8 and 24.
In my essay, I discuss the 4D case, which corresponds to S3 and the quaternions. One interesting structure in 4 space that comes to mind is the very symmetrical
24-cell which is discussed by
Frans Marcelis on several pages. If you are thinking about models for QM, Philip Gibbs has written about how the 24-cell is related to systems of
2-qubits and also systems of
4-qubits.
The 8D case is related to S7 and the octonions. John Baez discusses 8 dimensions in his Aug 3, 2013 post
here, and a related structure
here.
He previously made the case for 24 dimensions
here, including an argument related to harmonic oscillators.
When it comes to a wire frame compressing and expanding, I think of Robert Gray's
jitterbug motion between the cuboctahedron and octahedron, but his all takes place in 3D (i.e. does not change dimension). It is worth mentioning that the cuboctahedron has many nice properties and was a favorite of Bucky Fuller. Perhaps you can generalize this motion for the 24-cell, using the Hopf fibration that Frans Marcelis discusses.
Hugh
view post as summary
M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 03:48 GMT
Hugh
Good to see you're soaring high on the list -- and I suffered a series of 1's :(.
As usual, you are a source of wonderful info. Thank you! Still, I have my doubts. I have a very strong gut feeling --and I wish I had something more that this-- that 4D is magic. Think about it, why would Universe be 4D? Why not 5? or pick any other number? I am sure that this is because, topologically, it offers the max symmetries. Mathematicians don't get it, because they are mostly dealing with vectors or fields but an nD _object_, which is, essentially a chunk of n-space, has inherent limitations on number of dimensions it lives in and remain... I forget now, unfortunately, but maybe you will remember, there is some kind of limit, something to surface ratio, that reaches infinity already at n=7. There are topological constrains like this that limit the number of 'real' dimensions -- as in reality to actually a rather small number, Of them, 4D is it. There gotta be many good reasons why universe is 4D.
Thank you for your feedback and good luck in the finals,
-Marina
post approved
M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 20:01 GMT
Hi Hugh,
thank you for your reply. I'm afraid I did not explain myself clearly. You wrote: "I am not sure that a lower dimension would provide a more relaxed environment for high-D structures (wouldn't they feel "squashed" by the restriction?)"
Not at all. Let me explain. I'm talking about a dynamic, vibrating structure, for which dimensionality is one of its attributes. Going from...
view entire post
Hi Hugh,
thank you for your reply. I'm afraid I did not explain myself clearly. You wrote: "I am not sure that a lower dimension would provide a more relaxed environment for high-D structures (wouldn't they feel "squashed" by the restriction?)"
Not at all. Let me explain. I'm talking about a dynamic, vibrating structure, for which dimensionality is one of its attributes. Going from higher to a lower dimension does not 'squash' it but *unfolds* it. Take an example of a tesseract. Its surface is 8 cubes. You can stack these 8 cubes in 3D, in effect rearranging the 4-volume into a 3-volume; and the length the edge of this 'dimensionally reduced' object becomes twice as long. That's how, in fact, I understand the expansion of space, i.e. the higher-dimensional structure 'relaxes' into a (n-1) structure, which increases the length of its edges.
Also, when I spoke about your Landscape Test, I had quantum theory in mind, not the macro world. I am not clear yet --have to reread your essay-- how exactly you apply it to the Earth surface.
.
I'm pursuing the answer to the question: Why the universe is 4D? Why not 5, or pick any other number. I strongly believe that there is a good reason for this; and my hunch is that, topologically, 4D offers the maximum number of symmetries => in 4D the structure of space finds its lowest energy state.
When mathematicians and physicists deal with higher dimensions, the objects they consider are limited mostly to points, vectors and fields consisting of points and vectors. Those are 0 or 1-dimensional objects. But a real object, in real n-space, is essentially a segment of that space. For example, a cloud is a familiar object in 3D and so is a billiard ball. Their densities may differ, but ultimately, both are just segments of space with clearly delineated boundaries. These boundaries is what makes them 'real objects' as opposed to points and vectors -- even when a boundary wraps 'emptiness'.
Now, regarding 'real objects' in n-D, there is a topological theorem, the details of which I can't recall now, but hope you could remember -- and it says that some important ratio of... surface to.. 'something' -? reaches the limit of infinity already at n=7. This implies that there are not that many 'real spaces' that can contain 'real objects', and 4D is very special.
Again, there _is_ a clear, logical and unambiguous answer to the question 'Why 4D?' I am looking for it.
Thank you very much for all your input,
-Marina
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 11:32 GMT
Hi Marina,
> That's how, in fact, I understand the expansion of space, i.e. the higher-dimensional structure 'relaxes' into a (n-1) structure, which increases the length of its edges.
When structures are unfolded in this sense, it seems you would have to pick a place to open it, and thus break any symmetry the original structure had (in addition you are changing vex positions as...
view entire post
Hi Marina,
> That's how, in fact, I understand the expansion of space, i.e. the higher-dimensional structure 'relaxes' into a (n-1) structure, which increases the length of its edges.
When structures are unfolded in this sense, it seems you would have to pick a place to open it, and thus break any symmetry the original structure had (in addition you are changing vex positions as well as changing angles between edges). If the edge length is not a constant, I am not sure what you are preserving when you come down a dimension (e.g. vertex count, edge count? some edge connectivity?).
I guess the place to start is to decide what invariants you want to preserve when you change dimensions: this helps make precise the sense in which it is the "same" structure when it changes dimension.
> Now, regarding 'real objects' in n-D, there is a topological theorem, the details of which I can't recall now, but hope you could remember -- and it says that some important ratio of... surface to.. 'something' -? reaches the limit of infinity already at n=7.
I do not remember a theorem like that. But you might try a site like
http://math.stackexchange.com/ that has a topology section and might have people who can answer that.
> Again, there _is_ a clear, logical and unambiguous answer to the question 'Why 4D?' I am looking for it.
Here is something from the wikipedia article on
Geometric Topology that may provide a clue:
"Dimension 4 is special, in that in some respects (topologically), dimension 4 is high-dimensional, while in other respects (differentiably), dimension 4 is low-dimensional; this overlap yields phenomena exceptional to dimension 4, such as exotic differentiable structures on R4. Thus the topological classification of 4-manifolds is in principle easy, and the key questions are: does a topological manifold admit a differentiable structure, and if so, how many? Notably, the smooth case of dimension 4 is the last open case of the generalized Poincaré conjecture; see Gluck twists."
Hugh
view post as summary
hide replies
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Hugh,
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...
view entire post
Dear Hugh,
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.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Chidi Idika wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:20 GMT
Dear Hugh,
I Will love to have
your gracious input. It is valuable to me.
Best,
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:34 GMT
Hi Chidi,
I will have to take another look after the contest... I still have many essays to rate before tomorrow, since I saved that task until I had read as many as I could.
Hugh
Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:59 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 Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:35 GMT
Hi Charles,
Thanks for doing this... it is great to have a summary post and a kind of index!
Hugh
Helmut Hansen wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 05:12 GMT
Dear Hugh,
thank you for visiting my FQXI-page and leaving a comment. I appreciate much the clear and transparent way of reasoning, but I do not agree with the explicit (resp. explicate) physical conditions, in particular with those mentioned in your section TRANSFORMATION.
To give an example: I am convinced the Minkowski diagram implies only an incomplete description of spacetime. The complete spacetime is given by an entangled structure of a sphere and a square - a structure that looks very much like a MANDALA.
It is clear, that a different transformation between explicate space and implicate information occurs if spacetime is seen differently. And I do that...
Despite these objections, I think it is a meaningful and important concern to have a conscious look at these transformative processes. So, I scored your paper very high.
Kind Regards
Helmut
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT
Hi Helmut,
You wrote:
> It is clear, that a different transformation between explicate space and implicate information occurs if spacetime is seen differently. And I do that...
Over time, I hope to model several different possibilities for the transformation, within the general picture I described. I will take another look at your work on this.
> Despite these objections, I think it is a meaningful and important concern to have a conscious look at these transformative processes. So, I scored your paper very high.
Thank you!
Hugh
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:50 GMT
Dear Hugh,
a really interesting essay. Now I had a chance to have a more complete look in it. I agree with about the importance of the 3-sphere. Also from the topological point of view, the 3-sphere is the root of all compact 3-manifolds (one can obtain every compact 3-manifold by surgery -or cuta nd paste- along a knot or link). I also tried to uncover the role of the 3-sphere.
In my opinion, it is the topological origin of the dark matter but it is not fully worked out.
Best wishes
Torsten
PS: So, you got a high vote more than one week ago.
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:46 GMT
Hi Torsten,
You wrote:
> Also from the topological point of view, the 3-sphere is the root of all compact 3-manifolds (one can obtain every compact 3-manifold by surgery -or cut and paste- along a knot or link).
I wonder if we might be able to see dynamical processes in the 3-sphere induce such knots... and the knots will take us a long way: Lou Kauffman has described the basic connections between knots and physics in several papers and his book.
> PS: So, you got a high vote more than one week ago.
Thank you!
Hugh
Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:05 GMT
I also appreciate the importance of the 3-sphere while I come at things in an entirely different way [basically I take the opposite stance] :)
I'd appreciate your thoughts on my essay.
Cheers and best of luck,
Jennifer
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks... I made some comments on your blog back on July 22.
Hugh
Richard N. Shand wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:13 GMT
Hugh,
I like your idea of a digital simulation model in which you view the implicate cosmos as "a dynamical fluid on the surface of a hypersphere". Good food for thought!
You wrote that the "the explicate world of 'It' arises from the implicate world of 'Bit'. For Bohm, knowledge of the implicate order is acquired by insight. What we perceive is implicate order unfolded as explicate order. If so, it is explicate order, as the contents of our consciousness, that is epistemic (composed of "bits") and the underlying implicate order that is ontic ("it").
Also see my response to your comments to my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".
Best wishes,
Richard
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 02:39 GMT
Hi Richard,
> If so, it is explicate order, as the contents of our consciousness, that is epistemic (composed of "bits") and the underlying implicate order that is ontic ("it").
Rather than a binary epistemic/ontic distinction, I would break these up into three categories: (1) an observer's physical environment, the explicate, (2) an objective, shared reality, the implicate, and (3) the contents of our consciousness.
My category (2) may be best described by "ontic", but notice that (1) is the only thing we can measure, and what we commonly take for "it". Categories (1) and (2) are closely linked by via a (mathematical) transformation, which I think of as (1) from (2) or "It from Bit".
To properly account for the phenomenology of consciousness, I see Mind as an architectural layer (in the sense of software architecture) below Matter (i.e. not emergent from Matter as in the conventional view). This is what I call "Us" and is what informs (2). Thus my category (3) would correspond to the epistemic.
(1) Explicate, It
from (2) Implicate, Bit, ontic
from (3) Consciousness, Us, epistemic
Hugh
Sundance Bilson-Thompson wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
Hi Hugh,
I found this to be an interesting essay. I'm not really sold on the more mystical overtones at the end, but the idea of a search for systematic effects that might arise from the source code of the Universe is a good one. Maybe such a search is a low-likelihood, high-payoff undertaking, like SETI. Rather than looking for evidence that highpoints on Earth are in some way correlated, it seems more reasonable to me to search for correlations at galactic or super-galactic scales. If the idea that most computational power is given to the places close to observers, then I would expect the CMBR to be quite "crude", and the detail in the planet I live on to be very high.
Cheers,
Sundance
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 08:59 GMT
Hi Sundance,
> Rather than looking for evidence that highpoints on Earth are in some way correlated, it seems more reasonable to me to search for correlations at galactic or super-galactic scales.
There was interest in this sort of analysis of the CMB about 5 years ago.
Jean-Pierre Luminet and also
Jeff Weeks have described techniques and results. They basically look for regions of space that appear to be replicated in more than one direction, suggesting the shape of space is, for example, dodecahedral.
If we want to extend the fractal creasing Landscape Test to the cosmological scale we must decide what constitutes a "highpoint". For example, we might use density, or energy. We also have to decide what we want to use as a "center". Using the Earth as a center is convenient but seems overly anthropocentric.
Nevertheless, about ten years ago I tested a gamma ray burst catalog for evidence of alignment, but found that source positions were not sufficiently resolved to tell anything. The digital elevation data on Earth had much higher resolution and has a natural geometric center so that is what I ended up using for later analysis.
> If the idea that most computational power is given to the places close to observers, then I would expect the CMBR to be quite "crude", and the detail in the planet I live on to be very high.
Whether or not it is true in some objective sense, this is true in terms of our state of knowledge. There is a lot of interest now in finding ways to explain CMB anisotropy of various sorts. But the resolution of current CMB data is good enough to find complex creasing patterns, while the detail we have of our planet's terrain is much higher.
Hugh
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 09:03 GMT
Sorry.. the last sentence should read:
But the resolution of current CMB data is *not* good enough to find complex creasing patterns, while the detail we have of our planet's terrain is much higher.
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:49 GMT
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:37 GMT
Glad you could make it!
Good luck in the finals Hugh.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 04:05 GMT
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks, good to see you in the top 40, as I "rated you highly". (I guess that's the catch phrase in the contest...)
The process in the last week has been interesting to watch... it gave me the impression of 183 turtles in a bucket, clambering over each other to get to the top.
But many of my favorites made it, and I think the organizers have at least 20 good essays to choose from.
Hugh
M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT
Hi Hugh
congratulations on making the cut. I left a post in the end of my thread in your blog above and hope very much that we could continue our discussion about 'Why 4D?'
Thanks a lot for all your input,
-Marina
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.