Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 4/21/15 at 17:57pm UTC, wrote Rowan Great essay, speaking as a fan of both Jackson Pollock and jigsaw...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 4/11/15 at 10:00am UTC, wrote Dear Rowan, Very interesting ideas and important conclusions for search of...

Joe Fisher: on 4/8/15 at 15:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Rowan, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

Patrick Tonin: on 3/26/15 at 7:45am UTC, wrote Hi Rowan, Thank you for your comment on my blog. I posted a response. ...

Rowan Grigg: on 3/17/15 at 11:51am UTC, wrote Hi Patrick, Thanks for reading my essay. Please see my response on your...

Rowan Grigg: on 3/17/15 at 11:04am UTC, wrote Dear Joe, I think we all agree this world we live in is real (except when...

Joe Fisher: on 3/16/15 at 16:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Grigg, You wrote: “But of course many a foundational thinker...

Rowan Grigg: on 3/13/15 at 13:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin, Thanks for your kind feedback. I'm a bit of a 'hardware' man,...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "You seem to be equating Continuous=Classical. But communications engineers..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 14, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Chauncey's Dreams by Rowan Grigg [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Rowan Grigg wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 15:38 GMT
Essay Abstract

I argue that mathematics are generated by computation, specifically the lambda calculus. I further argue that mathematics cannot exist without dimensions, and that those dimensions are only manifest once they have been engendered by computation. The first of these dimensions gives us the number line, which encapsulates all of number theory. I draw on a number of famous insights to build up a picture of a universe in which each point in space is enumerated by a dedicated computation. The ensuing calculation of space engenders the mathematics we use to model the macroscopic behaviour of the universe, mathematics that are idealized approximations to the discrete machinations at the basis of reality. The model I present naturally lends itself to an accelerating expansion of space, and offers to merge the concepts of singularity and superposition, the two great mathematical pillars of last century’s physics. The essay addresses the theme “Trick or Truth? The Mysterious Connection between Physics and Mathematics” by drawing the reader into pondering whether or not I’m being serious about my conclusions.

Author Bio

I am a computer systems engineer, living and working in Canberra, the bush capital. My wife and I are almost empty nesters – we are ever so slightly crazy about our Russian blue, who still lives at home (when it suits him…)

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 21:48 GMT
Dear Rowan Grigg,

Thanks for your very interesting essay. You begin by stating that "mathematics are generated by computation", and I fully agree with this. In my essay I view the inherent logical structure of reality as that which enables AND and NOT 'gates' to exist at many scales (from RNA-DNA-protein to telomeres to neurons to silicon, etc.) and hence to compare and compute. Further, you state that, as a systems engineer, "we of course understand that there is ultimately some real hardware behind all this virtualization." It is the "real hardware", that is, "physical reality" that most concerns me.

If I understand you correctly, you then suppress the real hardware in favor of recursive or otherwise iterated virtual architectures in which, of course, fascinating structures may be constructed and overlaid on reality, but you seem to recognize this as artificial. When you end with "one massively parallel computer … engendering reality", it is not clear whether you have forgotten the requisite underlying hardware in favor of sleight-of-hand or whether this "reality" is simply some perceived reality at a virtual level. You might wish to clarify this point.

Finally, for a new take on "action-at-a-distance" I invite you to read my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Rowan Grigg replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 13:19 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thanks for your kind feedback. I'm a bit of a 'hardware' man, and reading Massimiliano Di Ventra and Yuriy V. Persin speak in the February edition of Scientific American about the building blocks of 'Memcomputers' reminded me just how special this hardware we're lucky enough to be made of really is. In his famous paper, Alan Turing used the wonderful word 'desultory' to describe the way the read/write head of his machine moves tirelessly back and forth along the tape without a single word of complaint. Nature has this same agnosticism in her slavish adherence to her laws, and that is where I saw the opportunity to map nature's consistency onto the consistency of computation.

I don't presume to fully understand the virtual architecture engendering (simulating) the perceived hardware of the universe, but I do posit its existence, and furthermore posit that it is NOT subject to the laws of nature. Indeed, the entirely virtual entity I borrowed from Gottfried, the 'monad', must exist outside the physics it engenders, for I posit that it holds itself up by its own boot straps in a kind of perpetual motion, a condition very clearly outlawed by the laws of thermodynamics (without which life as we know it would, sadly, not exist).

I accept this appears to be a sleight-of-hand, but so too does the single surface of a mobius strip seem as such - but there it is.

regards

Rowan

Bookmark and Share



Patrick Tonin wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 12:40 GMT
Dear Rowan,

I really enjoyed reading your essay.

You wrote "In 1990, John A. Wheeler saw a clear opportunity to break this cycle, mounting an argument that the world consists entirely in information enacting the laws of physics – delivering ‘it’ from ‘bit’ – and that our consciousness creates the very reality from which it has emerged, in a self-referential loop".

I propose a model of the Universe that follows the above description. I thought that you might want to take a look at it if you have a spare moment, you can find it here.

You can also take a look at my essay althought it is mainly a list of equations.

All the best,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Rowan Grigg replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 11:51 GMT
Hi Patrick,

Thanks for reading my essay.

Please see my response on your essay thread,

regards

Rowan

Bookmark and Share


Patrick Tonin replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 07:45 GMT
Hi Rowan,

Thank you for your comment on my blog. I posted a response.

Since I wrote my essay, I have released a new list of equations that seem to indicate that the Universe is purely mathematical and just pure information.

You can download it on www.vixra.org/abs/1503.0184

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Dr. Grigg,

You wrote: “But of course many a foundational thinker (including Weinberg himself) is just so inclined – for example in 2008, Max Tegmark, a mathematical physicist, argued that the universe is literally ‘made out of mathematics.’iii”

Professor Max Tegmark was comprehensively wrong.

This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Rowan Grigg replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 11:04 GMT
Dear Joe,

I think we all agree this world we live in is real (except when it is unreal). So then what we're all trying to do in this forum is figure out what on earth this stuff actually is. To this end, like it or not, the current fashion is to attempt to merge idealism and realism. It was once thought that the world was either a dream inside someone's head, or genuinely material. It's now looking likely that it is both,

kind regards

Rowan

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:48 GMT
Dear Rowan,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 11, 2015 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Rowan,

Very interesting ideas and important conclusions for search of a ontological basis of fundamental knowledge:

"If the monad is an abstraction, having no intrinsic dimension, then it is perhaps fair to suppose that all the numerous (but countable) monads generating this virtual reality ‘exist’ at a single dimensionless point. "

"However, it is just as valid to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 17:57 GMT
Rowan

Great essay, speaking as a fan of both Jackson Pollock and jigsaw puzzles. Does physics not too often try to solve puzzles by studying and numerically describing one piece at a time/

Very original and thought provoking. I was indeed left wondering if I was serious about my own conclusions. I must go and look up the definition of 'real'!

best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.