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

Joe Fisher: on 4/10/15 at 14:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Richard, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein...

Nick Mann: on 4/3/15 at 19:09pm UTC, wrote Is a paradoxical statement (X=~X, or "This sentence is false") the same as...

Sujatha Jagannathan: on 4/1/15 at 11:59am UTC, wrote Your work illumines with your co-ordinal authorship. -Sincerely, Miss....

Nick Mann: on 3/29/15 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Dr. Shoup, Lucid paper. Challenging. Cogent and readable. When you...

KoGuan Leo: on 3/25/15 at 9:12am UTC, wrote Dear Richard, Xuan Yuan about 4712 years ago already stated in The Four...

KoGuan Leo: on 3/21/15 at 8:25am UTC, wrote Dear Richard, Excellent and profound essay! I enjoyed reading yours. I do...

Richard Shoup: on 3/20/15 at 0:03am UTC, wrote @shirazi: Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Yes, everyone says this at...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/17/15 at 8:51am UTC, wrote "Here we see the real nature of relative motion and the basis for the space...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant. I can..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, "You referred to..." I was referring only to my final comments..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, One Objection. Don't blame Fourier: his original series is..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

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 17, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Emergence of Space and Time from Ultimately Simple Mathematics by Richard Shoup [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Richard Shoup wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 19:02 GMT
Essay Abstract

Beginning with Nothing and employing one operation/relation -- Difference -- we show how the foundations of space and time naturally emerge. By simply counting discrete differences properly, a natural definition of position and velocity, a maximum velocity, and relativistic addition of velocities are derived. When differences are arranged in self-referring reentrant expressions, core elements of dynamics also emerge including memory and clocks.

Author Bio

Richard Shoup received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Ph.D. in Computer Science from Carnegie Mellon University. He is currently President of the non-profit Boundary Institute in San Jose, California (a non-profit research group similar to Perimeter Institute, but without all that distracting funding), where his research interests include foundations of physics, mathematics, and computer science.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 05:32 GMT
Hi Richard,

As you know Wolfram and Conaway have tried similar ideas, your idea is another "trick" that seems to work. Actually your thought process is very much what had lead me to discover my system. I started with an idea that I thought it would be fun to see what happens, but with an extraordinary luck my system directly lead to the known physics.

I have been in the computer field for 25 years as CIO/CTO. I guess we the engineers have intuitive feel for how nature works because it is like a system. Physicist seem to look at it as if it is a football game where they have to deduce the rules.

Please check out my essay, you will be very pleased. You can run the JavaScript programs(which are so easy) and see how quantum mechanic naturally arise. And maybe you can get some idea to further develop your system.

Essay

Thanks and good luck.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 12:51 GMT
Hi Richard,

This is a worthy contribution to the contest. It is nice to see an essay whose theme resonates with my thinking. I believe like you that we should start from the most primitive and build our physics up from there. Since I agree with a lot of what you wrote, let me only point out some of the areas that need clarification leading to agreement or disagreement.

1. In Fig.2, if 'Nothing' separates the ordinal or cardinal sequence of 'NotNothing', then we may have OneThing. Discreteness may not be explainable.

2. I agree that "The first and smallest possible step away from Nothing is … NotNothing". Since Nature is economical, I propose in my essay that not only is this the first and smallest step, but it is the ONLY step Nature uses to create the illusion of multiplicity.

3. It is suggested in your essay but you did not state it categorically. Is ' NotNothing' eternally existing or can it perish?

It is on these three areas that we may have differences in opinion.

Best regards and all the best in the competition,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Neil Bates wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 14:41 GMT
Richard,

Your initial idea is the classic concept of differentiation of the primal self-existent "Void" into various phenomenal worlds. Your later development is creatively clever, I haven't previously seen an attempt to relate probability logic to relativistic velocity transformations etc. My own essay engages the relativistic dynamics of charged systems in spaces of various dimensions, in an attempt to explain why our space has three. Best.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 16:55 GMT
Hi Richard,

I love how you start with a very simple, discrete model. No need to complicate things if there isn't a reason.

I have a question though... Does the order of your + and - sequences in the two velocities play a role in how much time has passed when they are added together? From your relativistic addition of velocities formula, it seems as though it won't affect the added velocity. But is it true that if a + and - in one of the velocities was swapped, 5 moments would pass instead of 7, but the result would still be the same added velocity?

Also, not to inject continuous mathematics into the discussion, but some of your offsetting +s and -s reminded me a little of destructive interference in waves. Any thoughts?

Please check out my Digital Physics movie essay if you have the time.

Thanks,

Jon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 22:13 GMT
I think I have a ToE. I’ve succeeded at uniting the big and small. and explaining many mysteries within the model. Well, it is still developing. My current effort is single photon interference.

I started for physical concepts Is there such a thing as ``a void’’ between objects. My first concept was there must be 2 components whose interaction produces the universe. One doesn’t do it - no interaction. Your difference produces a void - which I think is not existent in our universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sherman loran jenkins wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 01:10 GMT
Hello Richard,

I have a little trouble getting something from nothing and will let others take care of that origin problem. But I do know where the physical regulator of time is located and how it works. Every speck of the Universal Vacuum is locked at the same pace by the dynamic shape that packs best.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Gantz wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 20:50 GMT
Richard - Thanks for an interesting essay! You and I see creation beginning with the identical distinction --- one from Void. Although I get there by following the metaphysical holes in math and physics and would not agree that the process can bootstrap itself.

Regards - George Gantz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 09:58 GMT
Dear Richard,

The scope of your essay is certainly very ambitious, and you present some intriguing ideas. In the spirit of constructive criticism, allow me to mention an issue that I have noticed.

In reference to your initial void, you say "It has no consequences or effects, and cannot be named, referenced, or pointed to", then you introduce as "The first and smallest possible step...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard Shoup replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 00:03 GMT
@shirazi: Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Yes, everyone says this at first, thinking of the usual idea of an "operator". I use that word only because I don't have a better one. Perhaps I should have made one up, or at least explained it better. The key thing is the idea of the boundary, not really an operator on one or two referents. The First Distinction IS the first object. This is always hard to get because it goes against our everyday classical experience with objects, and is one notch below it and prior to the usual logic or set theory starting places. -- Richard

Bookmark and Share



Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 08:51 GMT
"Here we see the real nature of relative motion and the basis for the space and time dilation of relativity."

Sorry I don't see anything like that in your essay. In 1905 Einstein informed the world that "the basis for the space and time dilation" is his constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 08:25 GMT
Dear Richard,

Excellent and profound essay! I enjoyed reading yours. I do believe we need at least two to start an exchange between two fundamental element that is actual one element that splits itself up into two so that it can evolve and exchange with each other to fo-evolve and so one. It is bootstrapping itself. It is pure magic.

I agree with you that "Mathematics is generative, dynamic, and alive." Yours deserved a high score and please look at mine and yes it is true we are searching for the fundamental truth.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 09:12 GMT
Dear Richard,

Xuan Yuan about 4712 years ago already stated in The Four Canons, 11 explains how things come into beings, from the "Void" without distinction: "All things had been one whole before the Heaven and Earth split... with no distinction of day and night, Yin and Yang. Since Yin and Yang were not separated yet, it was not possible to name anything. Now that one is divided into two:...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nick Mann wrote on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 17:43 GMT
Dr. Shoup,

Lucid paper. Challenging. Cogent and readable.

When you discuss sqrt(-1) ("i" or "j") logic configurations you specify that these are "abstract." I'm assuming this usage is in the spirit of Turing discussing TMs or, maybe more appropriate here, non-deterministic TMs. Also I'm keeping in mind Venn's expressed doubt, contra Boole, that formal logic could ever pull off a move analogous to the square root of a negative number as contained in mathematics. Additionally, in the opposite direction, I'm aware of Spencer-Brown's four classes of statements (true, false, meaningless and imaginary). Anyway:

In your opinion, is what in effect would be an "i" gate physically realizable and does it matter?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Nick Mann replied on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 19:09 GMT
Is a paradoxical statement (X=~X, or "This sentence is false") the same as an imaginary statement (per Spencer-Brown)?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 11:59 GMT
Your work illumines with your co-ordinal authorship.

-Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear Richard,

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


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.