FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

The physical dynamics of “bit from it” defines Object Physics, whereas identifying the causation of “it from bit” defines the other half of physics, Agent Physics. The two halves of physics are distinguished by a proof that scientific theories in Agent Physics can be undecidable, whereas those of Object Physics are always complete. Identification of the “it from bit” character underlying quantum theory enables a realisation of Einstein’s geometric unification of physics.

Author Bio

Michael Goodband has a physics degree from Cambridge University, and a PhD in Theoretical Physics from Sussex University. Author of “Agent Physics” (2012).

Download Essay PDF File

Michael,

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

Hello Michael,

I's good to see you made it into this year's contest. I shall comment once I have read your essay. Good luck!

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Michael,

After reading your essay and letting it sink in somewhat, I'm reminded of the plight of Edward Snowden, as you, from the inside, proclaim your freedom from the giant sucking Gods of Math, yet seem inexorably pulled in, as the only vehicle for making sense of this reality is the form of logic, yet all the same, it seems hollow and empty.

What greater feat of logic is there than Einstein's four dimensions of spacetime, with the black hole as its crowning mystery?

Yet think for a moment, what greater stack of coins, laser across the universe is there, than those jets of cosmic rays shooting out the poles of those fathomless vortices? Similarly across the breadth of the gravity wells that are the surrounding galaxies, they radiate enormous amounts of light and radiation. It seems like any despotic regime, or binary star, they can only pull in so much before going supernova, scattering heavy metals and complex mathematical formulae back out across the heavens, with all that stored energy released.

Good luck fighting the geometry to the ground, yet know it is part of you and you are part of it. Only part though.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael,

Welcome back. I read your extremely interesting paper and I'm still digesting it. I've several preliminary reactions.

By bringing consciousness into the picture, and ignoring the energy expended by the agent in stacking coins, you do provide a reasonable example of 'It from Bit', which however I do not see as fully compatible with Wheeler's version. The "it" here is...

view entire post

Dear Michael,

Welcome back. I read your extremely interesting paper and I'm still digesting it. I've several preliminary reactions.

By bringing consciousness into the picture, and ignoring the energy expended by the agent in stacking coins, you do provide a reasonable example of 'It from Bit', which however I do not see as fully compatible with Wheeler's version. The "it" here is the stack of coins, which already existed, whereas it seems Wheeler wanted to produce the coins, not their arrangement, from information.

I tend to consider that the transfer of energy from source to detector, if it crosses a threshold and rearranges (informs) a physical structure, becomes stored information, deriving meaning from the context, which may be hierarchical in nature. Thus when you say the coin stacking example illustrates the key feature of agent control, "where the information contained in a collection of objects controls how many times an agent repeats the same behavior", I would tend to consider most of the "information" as residing in the agent's head, although one can also map it into the structural organization of the coins. Whatever the case, there is no fundamental information existing as "bits" except in the context of interpreted arrangements. I think we are in basic agreement here.

We are in absolute agreement that "all can be described by numbers" is scientific and "all is numbers" is pre-scientific belief in magic. I recall your discussion of Gödel from your previous essay, but you've enlarged on that treatment (on page 5, etc.) and summarize that "Object Physics is decidable, whereas Agent Physics is undecidable." I think I have a better understanding of your theory now.

Whereas I agree with you about the place of 'belief' in science, the fact is that currently physics is dominated by the belief in magic. I discuss this in my essay, Gravity and the Nature of Information, which I hope you will find interesting. In short, we are in complete agreement on the place of numbers in physics, and the error of believing "all is math". I think I would map "information" slightly differently than you, but I don't see that as a problem. I think I understand your agent approach much better than from your first essay, and how it fits with Gödel.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 11:43 GMT

Hi Edwin

You cannot ever ignore energy and still do physics. Trying to bring consciousness into the picture before you've nailed down the relationship between energy and information is a mistake, and often leads to some sort of quantum mysticism about consciousness - i.e. leads nowhere. The notion of information I use is simply configuration entropy because it is the only...

view entire post

Hi Edwin

You cannot ever ignore energy and still do physics. Trying to bring consciousness into the picture before you've nailed down the relationship between energy and information is a mistake, and often leads to some sort of quantum mysticism about consciousness - i.e. leads nowhere. The notion of information I use is simply configuration entropy because it is the only opinion-independent concept of information there is. Your example is still the causation of "bit from it" - information from the distribution of energy - which is Object Physics, whereas the causal pattern of agency is the reverse - expending energy on the basis of information. You've also confused information with the "meaning" of information. This is where keeping the physics focus on energy and configuration entropy helps, because it provides the basis for the most minimal definition of "meaning" in physics:

The meaning of a stimulus s to an agent a is the energetic response r that the agent displays to the stimulus s: a(s, e) -> a', r

By this definition, the meaning of a stimulus is specific to the agent that has the energetic response, and since no object displays an energetic response - that's the definition of an agent - there is no "meaning" in Object Physics. Given sufficient grasp of agency, this definition can be traced to the common understanding of the word "meaning".

The "theory" underlying Agent Physics and the key incompleteness proof is simply Science - that you can DESCRIBE physical reality using maths - nothing more. In the last 400 years this "theory" has worked out rather well. Agent Physics can be deduced in standard classical physics without the addition of any new theoretical concepts of any kind - and the key definitions and proofs are at undergraduate level physics and maths. A firm understanding of these fundamentals of classical physics and maths (over the counting numbers!) is needed before tacking quantum theory.

My example of the coin-stack is directly relevant as the same sort of pattern occurs in QFT. The "it" of the coin stack did NOT exist before, it is a compound object made of sub-objects that are energetically arranged on the basis of the configuration entropy (information) of their current arrangement. In QFT there is a critical distinction between a "bare particle" - the fundamental object - and a "real particle" that is measured in any experiment - the 2 are not the same. A "real particle" is a compound object consisting of the "bare particle" surrounded by a network of interacting "virtual" particles and radiation. As I mentioned in last year's essay, "virtual" is a concept in Relativity at the level of classical physics - it's not strictly a QT concept. I reproduce this pattern in classical physics: the fundamental or "bare" particle is a topological defect in space which is surrounded by a "radiation field" and gives a "real particle" as a compound object, EXACTLY as in QFT. The information in question resides in the configuration of the vacuum, both in terms of energy conservation and topological conditions. This is EXACTLY what Wheeler was considering - the "it" of a "real particle" from the information "bits" of the vacuum state.

The "map" is the science theory of the "territory" of reality, and the dream of an exact 1 to 1 mathematical mapping between the 2 has been PROVEN impossible within science.

Best

Michael

view post as summary

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 17:41 GMT

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your reply. I think we still have a terminology problem, but you've cleared up some aspects, for example, the coin stack as compound object. You've worked out a much more complete theory than most here, and that means that things are clear in your mind that others must grasp more slowly. I understand your QFT analogy, but it doesn't all fit together for me just yet.

I agree with you that consciousness in the picture often leads to 'quantum mysticism', but that's not where I'm trying to lead. Like you, I have a pretty thoroughly worked out theory that may not make sense without a good bit of study.

We do agree that you can *describe* physical reality using math, nothing more. I'll try to read your essay again with the above comments in mind.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael

Unfortunately, your essay is too large for automatic translation capabilities of my computer. Anyway,also wish you success.

And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition along with 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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Michael,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

Manuel

PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr Goodband,

You caught my attention with Einstein's geometric unification of physics, as this is something I've made some progress on outside of the essay contest. Also the essay I feel is very well written and the coin example is excellent!

Please take a look at my essay if you get time. Either way I'd be interested to read more about "Agent Physics"!

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Goodband,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr Goodband,

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

Dear Michael James Goodband:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people your discipline is the one that uses more the so called “time” than any other.

I am sending you a practical summary, so you...

view entire post

Dear Michael James Goodband:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people your discipline is the one that uses more the so called “time” than any other.

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay “The deep nature of reality”.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don’t understand it, and is not just because of my bad English). Hawking, “A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Goodband,

I do beg your pardon. I am a decrepit old realist and I wish to make a comment about your essay. I am hesitant to do so for I fear that my criticism might offend your sensibilities. I mean no offense. I merely wish to inform you about reality.

You wrote: “Instead, the incompleteness proof gives yet another proof that there is no complete physically-real scientific theory that replaces quantum theory.” As I have noted in my essay BITTERS:

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.

Wheeler ought to have asked:

Is the real Universe simple? Yes.

Is the abstract universe simple? No.

Is unique simple? Yes

Is quantum theory simple? No.

I wish you luck in the contest.

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Hello Michael,

I am yet to rate your essay. Meanwhile...

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"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

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 10:40 GMT

Hi Akinbo

Your questions are framed in the context of what I call the *quantum myth* which everyone seems to like because you can go round and round in it for all eternity without ever reaching a conclusion (I think you have unreasonably large pockets). The existence/non-existence of an 'it' is the fundamental digital character of existence. The problem that I find is that attempting to construct a theory that always describes this binary state by 0 and 1 fails and you *have* to adopt a continuous real number description instead. The digital reality doesn't change but your description of reality *has* to change - the weird features of QT follow from this change.

Best

Michael

Dear Dr. Goodband,

Beside "Objective Physics" & "Agent Physics" Equal to a Total proposition of Reality, I request you to read my essay which defines

"Left Handedness" & "Right Handedness" equal to a Reality which is expressible only through some specific constants.

I agree with the two halves of Reality.

Thanks

Dipak

report post as inappropriate

Hello Michael,

I enjoyed your essay greatly and rated it highly (which you deserve). It is a convincing explanation of why Agent Physics is the root cause of "It from Bit." Very well done! I hope you will find the time to read my humble effort in this year's contest. I wish you the best of luck.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT

Regarding the smallest unit possessing agency..

Particles in your formulation are topological deformations, unified on the 7-sphere at the extreme microscale, and due to the unique properties of S7 and the connection with the octonions, the question naturally arises. Do 'atoms of space' possess the property of agency (in some rudimentary form)? How about sub-atomic particles, photons, or physical atoms? The octonions and their algebra possess a kind of dynamism that is procedurally evolutive in requiring sequential operations performed in stages. Do topological deformations operating in octonionic space therefore possess agency?

Alain Connes famously wrote "Noncommutative measure spaces evolve with time!" and goes on to say they have a 'God-given set of automorphisms,' in his NCG 2000 paper. But describing the octonions, which are non-associative as well as non-commutative; P.C. Kainen wrote that these two properties need not be seen as an impediment to proper usage in Physics - as they force progressive or sequential ordering in a way that allows ease of geometrization, and naturally models the dynamism observed in Physics. This would suggest that your STUFT theory and its variations - being connected with the natural properties of S3 and S7 - WOULD confer at least a minimal degree of agency to structure in the universe and make Object Physics a subset rather than a complement of Agent Physics. Do you concur?

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 14:56 GMT

As I note in my essay;

When I asked Gerard 't Hooft, in a conversation at FFP10, 'what does the computing in your model? Are there perhaps atoms of space or 2-d patches at the Planck scale?' and his reply was that atoms of space are not needed, "because the laws of nature do the calculating for us."

How would you answer the same question, Michael?

Best Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 15:03 GMT

One further query..

I see sub-atomic particles as knots or congruences in octonionic space, in your STUFT theory, and proposed variations working from S15. Is this essentially correct, in terms of a visualization or conceptual model?

That's all for now..

Good luck.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT

Hi Jonathan

Yes, particles are topological defects in space in my geometric unification of physics (or Einstein's depending on your perspective as it's GR in 11D) but they are effectively bare particles, as in QT. Topology gives the boundary conditions ensuring the existence of these spatial defects, but finding a closed form solution is *proven* not to be possible. Adopting a perturbative...

view entire post

Hi Jonathan

Yes, particles are topological defects in space in my geometric unification of physics (or Einstein's depending on your perspective as it's GR in 11D) but they are effectively bare particles, as in QT. Topology gives the boundary conditions ensuring the existence of these spatial defects, but finding a closed form solution is *proven* not to be possible. Adopting a perturbative approach starts with a bare topological defect of the form of a spinning Planck scale black hole. The combination of the topological conditions (from the S7) and the ergo-region of the rotating black hole (from space-time) gives the effect of the bare particle meeting the conditions of being an agent. This is conceptually just because the bare particle is effectively an unstable solution to the full 11D GR, but the combination of conditions prevents the full solution of a real particle working out in a straightforward fashion - all the weirdness of QT is the consequence.

As all objects are fundamentally composed of these topological defect particles, which strangely possess agent characteristics in bare form, in a sense all of physics (and the rest of science for that matter) lies within the domain of Agent Physics. The clear division into Object Physics and Agent Physics simply follows from attempting to model the patterns of energy and information in physical dynamics, i.e. from doing physics.

All the fundamental particles of the Standard Model, with correct charges (plus Weinberg angle and coupling constants), are produced by a topological mapping from S7 in the octonion space to a spatial S2, IF and ONLY IF the symmetry of the S7 has been broken so as to split the S7 into S3 fibre and S4 base-space. In extended GR the topological defects take the form of twists in the structure of the compactified S7 dimensions in going around the spatial S2 enclosing some point (or hole in space). In a pure geometric theory with only the structure of the fabric of space, a question like, "what does the computing (over the numbers of particles)?" can only have the fundamental answer, the fabric of space - which is synonymous with the laws of physics.

Best

Michael

view post as summary

hide replies

Thank you Michael!

I appreciate the time taken for a detailed answer. And I am glad we are in agreement that Agent Physics is encompassing, or plays a dominant role in the structure of Physics as a whole. The best of luck!

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael,

Re-reading your essay. I must confess very informative essay and very readable. Deserving of a very good rating. In your essay, you said: "The external input of energy into a subsystem of objects causes the configuration entropy to increase, giving a positive thermodynamic temperature". Given an input of energy into a sub-system of positive but abysmally low temperature, say 10-30oC, how will the resulting astronomical configuration entropy manifest?

I agree that Object Physics can explain “bit from it” and Agent Physics “it from bit”. In my essay I identify the 'it' as an extended point, but I have difficulty identifying the Agent. You may wish to comment.

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Hello Michael

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

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

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 10:30 GMT

Hi Than Tin

I discovered the truth of Feyman's words in last years essay contest, when I found that there exists an independent way of arriving at exactly the same topological conditions as in my geometric unification of physics. There was also a hint from other essays last year that there could be a third way as well.

Michael

Michael,

Jonathan pointed me here. I thank him. From a heavy start it built steadily to a great work and then brilliant crescendo. I punched the air in finding I really wasn't going insane. Your thesis describes and beautifully rationalises a central and key part of my own, just viewed from a different angle and aspect. I term is as the 'Dirac Line' discerning mathematical approximation and the layered higher order 'sample spaces' of physical entities and interactions, the evolution of which is described by continuous curves

I hope I also go on to show not only that you are correct but the power of this new paradigm, including resolving the EPR paradox without FTL. We're not alone, many other essays probe the same theme; Matlock, Gaisin, Planat, Dreyer, Perez, McGuire, Mijatovic, McHarris, Rogozhin, Durham, Watson, Kadin, Baugher, Heckman, Bennett etc. etc. It just needs all pulling together. Are you the man? For me it's simply a leg of a greater unifying ontological construction.

I pulled out a number of top quotes from your essay but won't repost them. Suffice to say very well done and certainly a top score earned. I think the heavy start may have put many off as I can't understand your poor rating.

I hope I can prevail on you to read mine and give me your views on my quite different and slightly more radical essay. I hope you find it all pulls together.

Very well done and thank you for yours.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 10:25 GMT

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your kind words.

As I also described in last years essay contest, the crux to further progress is the *proof* of incompleteness for the "physically-real theories" that Einstein was after. There is no choice but to go through this result in one way or another, so others are *definitely* going to arrive at the same point - it is just a matter of time. The suprising thing is just how widespread this result is in science; finding the origin of QT is just the start of a far bigger paradigm shift in science. The scale of it means that many others will probe similar issues; I went for the heart of it in the most straightforward and generic way in physics.

The "heavy" start is because I think that it is necessary to reframe Wheelers point otherwise you just end up going down the same old trail and coming up with nothing new. Paradigm shifts have never been popular in the entire history of intellectual thought, so it is no suprise that this one is turning out to be equally unpopular. But there is nowhere else to go, so the whole of science is going to have to face it eventualy. As with past paradigm shifts, this one has been found by someone not in academia - this seems to be the really unacceptible part.

I have downloaded your essay and will download the essays you noted. I will be reading them later as I'm on vacation and can only get French internet access in tourist information offices.

All the best

Michael

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 11:23 GMT

Michael,

I agree entirely, and understand about Wheelers views, which I think were designed to be controversial and have been taken too literally.

I recall commending your essay last year, which was one of the few with more comments than mine! I don't recall if you read mine. I'll re-read yours after the contest. I don't recall you managed to read mine. I hope you may be able to now as the last two are precursors to this, all deriving observation from mechanism.

I've applied a top mark to yours as I consider it even better and more pertinent than last years. I think mine supports and points to yours, as well as demonstrating the power of the approach, with a resolution or EPR I hope you'll analyse. (Also see the links in the first blog post). I also need points as I've been passed over from 7th twice, so need a better finish!

I might also add Heinrich and Lindner to the list. Q; How many physicist does it take to shift a paradigm?

Very best of luck,

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT

Peter

"How many physicist does it take to shift a paradigm?"

That is a very good question. Each time it is different and no-one seems to record how it really happens because there is so much back pedelling and covering up the blocks so as to maintain a myth of openess in physics.

Michael

Dear Michael,

You write

"Such switching from natural-numbers to real-numbers in theory and back again, is at the heart of what quantum theory is really about".

I tend to agree. I would say in a wider perspective: understanding the deep mathematical meaning of quantum theory is crucial to interpret it physically.

"And in fact, quantum theory predicts you will never measure a particle as both existing and not existing at the same time"

I think that I am close to understand this fact (and others) with Grothendieck's concept of 'dessins d'enfants'. In my essay, edges in a dessin are (multiple spin) quantum observables and their extremities are the two possible values that one can measure

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Your essay reveals a well structured thought. You still say (after Henri Poincaré) "a mathematical theory in science is a description of reality in the language of maths, not reality itself", this perfectly fits my philosophy of science.

Number theory is considered the Queen of Mathematics but it is no longer my view after some practice of QM and the various branches of mathematics it involves.

Thank you for you well written and impressive essay.

I visited your chiral (Spin(3)xSU(2)xU(1))/Z3 quantum field theory too but may be the summer is too hot in France these days!

You can expect a high rate from my side.

Good luck,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Michel Planat replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:42 GMT

Dear Michael,

I red the extremely interesting dialogue you had last year with Joy Christian. I will consider it as a reference for my ongoing work related to Hopf fibrations.

As promised I rate your essay.

All the best,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 15:51 GMT

Michel

I would be interested in any opinion youmay have about the potential of the fibrations of S15 with regards to the physics discussion we had last year

Best

Michael

Hi Michael,

Reading your great essay makes me regret not having made time enough to thoroughly read your book, which I think is requisite to understanding your final statement -- so I am not yet sure I can fully agree with your boldest claims.

Nevertheless, we still agree in principle on a great number of important things concerning relativity, and strongly with, "Stop the progression away from thinking about physics in terms of material objects and their interactions, and come back to reality." Even if I remain unconvinced that there is any reality to come back to; if not, the rejection of particle reality is complete.

I am happy to have given your essay a deserved rating boost.

My own essay overlaps with yours in significant ways, particularly concerning the behavior of fermions in a continuum theory. I hope you find it worthwhile.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT

Hi Tom

The bold claims all follow logically from addressing what a science theory is and that maths isnt reality. This is why my book starts off at essentially the beginning og what is physics.

There is some overlap in thinking as we discussed last year.

Best

Michael

(still on vacation and not fully engaged with this years essay contest yet)

I agree about the significant overlap with Tom, Michael..

His essay has my vote as one of the first you should read after returning from your vacation. And also Michel who commented above has much to recommend your attention. I hope your Summer vacation has been excellent!

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael.

I had to read your essay twice and it could well reward further reading.

You have hit upon an important way to tackle that old monster of physics: quantum weirdness. Agent physics seems to do with interaction, with measurement, with sensing and you are saying that the energy spent doing that is its important characteristic.

In my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here however, I have created the starting point of what you would call Object physics: A universal lattice of nodes that interact locally, causally and linearly to define particles, energy transport, etc. In such model Universe where would the Agent physics operate? There is no observer, no measurer, no frames of reference, and all the numbers are Natural. I have shown that in such a Universe probability is derivative. It is a physics wherein the background and foreground are one.

In my fqxi essay The Cloud of Unknowing I concluded that while we will not know for sure, we can guess that It=Qubit. The lattice node orientation is a physical state, not a numerical value. Your opinion about some of these notions will be most appreciated.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael,

That was a great pleasure to read your very interesting essay. Reading so many essays I was waiting for something like that.

You say “Einstein was right in his vision that a purely geometrical theory could achieve physics unification”.

We differ in details but we are very close. There is not a lot of entrants that I agree with so much.

My key concept for the unification in physics is scale invariant metric. I have proposed a simple spin experiment to find out if that metric exists. The details in references to my essay.

Despite the differences between our views (we could discuss them if you read my concept) your essay deserves the highest rating.

Best regards

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael,

I liked your essay and rated it as one of he best.

Your conclusion:

What Einstein was wrong about was his assertion that quantum theory could be replaced by a non-probabilistic theory. Instead, The incompleteness proof gives yet another proof that there is no complete physically-real scientific theory that replaces quantum theory.

Is correct.

However, I will say why not drop the "physically real" part. Then there is no uncertainty concerning position and velocity. Einstein was correct about QM. However, he may have some objection about how particles really move.

I think you will find my essay interesting. Please take a look.

Best of luck.

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 16:01 GMT

Hi Don

The "physically real" part is absolutely critical to the paradigm shift given here. It is what Einstein was alluding to in his EPR paper but didnt specify what he meant well enough. Given it is something that Einstein tripped up on I think it is crucial.

Best

Don

(will read your essay when Im off vacation)

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear All

Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this “I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

Further on, he advises the readers “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

Did he says anything about Wheeler’s “It from Bit” other than what he said above?

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Hi Michael,

Thank you for a very well written description of Agent vs Object physics. However, I wondered about one thing you wrote:

> Instead, the natural-number basis of physically-real scientific theories of object state changes identifies such theories as being exactly the type of arithmetic systems considered by Gödel [13]... Given its significance it should be taught to all...

view entire post

Hi Michael,

Thank you for a very well written description of Agent vs Object physics. However, I wondered about one thing you wrote:

> Instead, the natural-number basis of physically-real scientific theories of object state changes identifies such theories as being exactly the type of arithmetic systems considered by Gödel [13]... Given its significance it should be taught to all aspiring physicists and philosophers, many of whom haven't grasped that Gödel's incompleteness is a feature of discrete logic over arithmetic natural-number systems.

Gödel states that the systems he is considering are those for which the axioms of Principia Mathematica hold. In a footnote he explicitly states that he is including the axiom of infinity. Such systems are sufficient to do arithmetic (addition and multiplication) but most importantly, to do arithmetic for *any* natural number (no matter how large).

Every actual computer does not meet this test because it has a finite memory size (as well as finite word size). Instead, actual computers can be models for Primitive recursive arithmetic, which is provably consistent in Peano arithmetic. Therefore, finite systems can be consistent. It is only the abstract infinite logical systems that come to grief by Gödel's hand.

> The computational universe paradigm implicitly raises issues of mathematical completeness and computability.

My essay Software Cosmos constructs an example of a (closed) computational universe (that appears as open), and shows how that this answers several puzzles in observational cosmology.

In such a computational model, your "Agent Physics" can be distinguished from "Object Physics" in terms of software architecture: they occur at different layers. The philosophical question that arises is whether the Agent layer is higher or lower than the Object layer; put another way, does Life emerge from Matter, or does Matter emerge from Life?

I am curious how you would place your Object Physics and Agent Physics within the model I describe. I hope you get a chance to read it.

Hugh

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 05:25 GMT

Just posting to sign this comment.

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 16:07 GMT

Hi Hugh

Object Physics is naturally lower than Agent Physics, which is clearly the case in most agent systems where the agents are compound objects. QT is the exception, where the bare particle is essentially the lower level and the real particle is atthe higher level. The derivation of QT given in my papers and book parallels the situation found in QT with the distinction between bare and real particles.

Best

Michael

(Life emerges from a sustainable dynamic agent system composed of material objects, to think otherwise is to believe in mysticism - even it is quantum mysticism)

Dear Michael,

It is interesting essay. However, I have a question on the distinction between Object Physics and Agent Physics. Is it rigorous distinction> Or, is it flexible?

Best wishes,

Yutaka

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT

Hi Yutaka

The distinction is absolute because it is given simply in terms of energy and causation, both of which are essential to the construction of physical theories:

Best

Michael

Hi, votes are vanishing again.

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is interesting.

I gave it a ten to give it a last push.

Hopefully you will like mine too

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

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

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

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations Michael,

It is official now (according to Brendan's contest blog); you have made the cut. Good luck in the finals!

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael James Goodband:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people your discipline is the one that uses more the so called “time” than any other.

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay “The deep nature of reality”.

I am convince you...

view entire post

Dear Michael James Goodband:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people your discipline is the one that uses more the so called “time” than any other.

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay “The deep nature of reality”.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don’t understand it, and is not just because of my bad English). Hawking, “A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate