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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

Steven Andresen: on 7/7/17 at 5:51am UTC, wrote Hi Steve Sorry for the late reply. I havent been back to this page since...

Steven Andresen: on 7/7/17 at 5:36am UTC, wrote Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/29/17 at 7:28am UTC, wrote Hello I liked the link with this space. I consider that space does not...

Steven Andresen: on 6/29/17 at 5:27am UTC, wrote Darwinian Universal I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received,...

Steven Andresen: on 6/28/17 at 8:15am UTC, wrote Darwinian Universal The nature of the interaction between space and...

Georgina Woodward: on 8/17/16 at 4:55am UTC, wrote Hi Alex, I accept that hyenas are not typical of all animals in the...

Alex Rhatushnyak: on 8/16/16 at 17:07pm UTC, wrote Thank you for the counter examples and other helpful comments! We are...

Alex Rhatushnyak: on 8/16/16 at 16:51pm UTC, wrote The missing continuation: M <= 2^x, x is negligible compared to...



FQXi FORUM
April 5, 2020

CATEGORY: Complexity [back]
TOPIC: Complexity levels and what they suggest [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 10, 2016 @ 10:38 GMT
A new thread to discuss an issue suggested by Alex Rhatushnyak (thank you).

Alex's summary follows:


At many complexity levels there seems to be two fundamental classes of

information systems:



1. Elementary particles are first of all either bosons or fermions.

Bosons are generally force carrier particles, whereas fermions

are usually associated with matter.



2. Atomic nucleus and electron cloud.



3. Life molecules including RNA and DNA, versus all other, lifeless molecules.

Living creatures are able to be proactive towards their environment, whereas

lifeless matter is adaptive (reactive) to environment rather than proactive.



4. Starting from the rather simple living creatures, most organisms are either

proactive (animals) or adaptive (plants) to resources of the environment.



5. More advanced living creatures are either proactive (males) or

adaptive (females) with respect to other individuals of their species.



6. Placebo effect suggests that there is a proactive and an adaptive agent in psyche.



7. It's hard to look above and beyond, but it seems likely that individuals

in advanced societies are either mostly creators or mostly consumers

of informational products (decisions, innovations, virtual realities...)

Thus again, mostly either proactive or adaptive, now towards their society.



8. It also seems likely that most societies position themselves first of all as

either proactive or adaptive towards their space-time neighbors.



Supposedly this is because information systems evolve better when there are features

enabling bimodal distributions, and seemingly proactive/adaptive is one of such

features.



If the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis[1] is true, that is, the hypothesis that

our external physical reality is isomorphic to a huge mathematical structure (HMS),

then it seems possible that the gradual increase of total complexity of HMS is

what we subjectively perceive as time, and increase of complexity in a self-aware

core (perhaps the proactive agent of psyche) could be essential for what we

subjectively perceive as qualia and consciousness.

Note this is descriptive (Kolmogorov) complexity, not computational complexity.

Descriptive complexity of a 10^122 bit long sequence[5] is below 1000 bits

if the sequence is fully describable with a short pattern and a repeat count.



We can assume that HMS always contains an infinite amount of "random" data, which

gradually become "non-random". For a finite, binary, one-dimensional illustration

consider a set of 2^Z files such that the first N bits are the same in all files

of the set, while data in the last Z bits are different in each file of the set.

Then at the next (for this reference frame) moment t+tp, where tp is Planck time,

the set contains 2^(Z-x) files such that N+x bits are the same, and Z-x bits are

all different. Or M groups of files (if we assume that M variants of future

may be equally real) such that N+x bits are same within each group.

Continue to read the full post here

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Aug. 10, 2016 @ 12:37 GMT
"If the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis[1] is true, that is, the hypothesis that our external physical reality is isomorphic to a huge mathematical structure (HMS)..." That hypothesis is self-evidently false, since a(b+c) is not physically isomorphic with its mathematical identity ab+ac. In other words, a single physical entity cannot simultaneously be both a two-multiplier structure and a one-multiplier structure. They are physically very different structures, in spite of the fact that they are mathematical identities. Hence, mathematical identities are highly unlikely to be isomorphic with physical identities, because there is seldom a unique physical structure corresponding to any mathematical identity. Another way to think about this, is that there are usually multiple different algorithms, each with its own highly distinctive physical structure, corresponding to the solution to any given mathematical equation. Thus an equation per se cannot determine the structure that nature physically employs to manifest the equation in the physical laws. The mathematics may specify the laws, but that is not sufficient to specify a unique physical reality for implementing those laws.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 10, 2016 @ 19:12 GMT
Hello Mr McEachern,

It is well explained.I agree.The complexity returns to simplicity after all.This complexity has its limits like many things in fact.The maths can explain physics if the Tools are well utilised.That said I consider an universe Under laws of physics.The gravitation is the secret of main informations and main codes of evolution.Can we compute our universe? yes,with limits!Isomorphism of main codes seems not possible simply because codes and informations are gravitational.The physicaal reality is a domain with its intrinsic laws,deterministic and rational.The complexity also is deterministic.The subjectivity and the objectivity are two things totaly different.Maths can be subkjective, not physics.Thanks for sharing,best regards.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Aug. 10, 2016 @ 18:47 GMT
I don't think this proactive/reactive dichotomy is especially accurate or useful. And several of the points here are just wrong. Number 5 especially... I mean, maybe I'm just being reactive, but anyone who thinks females are generally not proactive... hasn't known the females I have. And even the basic one, 3, about "lifeless matter" -- counter examples abound. Fire, for instance. And the idea that time is the perception of increase of complexity... yah, nope. Eventually, as time progresses, the stars will burn out, black holes will consume all and then evaporate, and the universe will become empty and cold -- a complete lack of complexity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 11, 2016 @ 04:54 GMT
Hi Alex and All,

What is the issue you wish to discuss Alex? Is it whether there are bimodal information systems throughout nature or something else?

It seems to me that a 'nice' idea has been conceived and then there has been an effort to fit nature to it, and it doesn't work convincingly. I would argue that both plant and animal kingdoms are adaptive and also proactive. Its just less obvious for plants as their behaviour is carried out over longer periods of time. Consider a time lapse film of a bean tendril seeking out supports. Male and female behaviour differences can have a cultural aspect. Cultural expectations forming the externally observed character not merely innate biology. It is also presenting a stereotype, whereas in real life there is a lot of individual variation in part due to upbringing.

Alex has written "Supposedly this is because information systems evolve better when there are features enabling bimodal distributions, and seemingly proactive/adaptive is one of such features." I don't know Who supposes this and on the basis of what objective evidence? Do information systems evolve better that way? Is "Seemingly" rather than "Supposedly" meant at the start of that paragraph, following on from the (less than convincing) examples above?

This following sentence puzzles me "We can assume that HMS always contains an infinite amount of "random" data, which gradually become "non-random". I'm not sure how the random information can remain infinite if increasing amounts of it are becoming non random over time. Are you suggesting information input to the universe that replaces the now non random information? Yet even so, how can it be called infinite if there could be more of it without some of it having become ordered? Maybe you meant 'near infinite' and I'm being pedantic.

Alex is the above criticism at all helpful to you?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 11, 2016 @ 05:09 GMT
Hyenas are a good counter example, in which the females are the dominant members of the society. Even a female cub outranks a male, (from BBC Earth article). Certainly the males must react to the proactive reproaches of the females, displaying their submission,in order to avoid dangerous aggression.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 11, 2016 @ 05:23 GMT
Alex,

I did take a look at the full article. There seems to be a great many ideas up for discussion there and I think its too much to deal with all at once. It might be better to take just the start of the article and dissect that, to find out whether the statements are backed up by objective evidence rather than speculation or assumption. As well you might consider whether the statements follow on from each other. I.e. are you building a case, a structured argument, here or just throwing out a lot of unconnected ideas? I've said that because I can't see the connection between them, such as the starting list and the mathematical universe idea, even though you may have it in mind.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alex Rhatushnyak wrote on Aug. 16, 2016 @ 16:46 GMT
The missing continuation.



M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alex Rhatushnyak wrote on Aug. 16, 2016 @ 16:47 GMT
The missing continuation:

M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alex Rhatushnyak wrote on Aug. 16, 2016 @ 16:49 GMT
The missing continuation:

M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alex Rhatushnyak wrote on Aug. 16, 2016 @ 16:51 GMT
The missing continuation:

M <= 2^x, x is negligible compared to N, N is negligible compared to Z: x << N << Z.

Descriptive complexity of HMS is the complexity of only the "non-random" part of it,

because the "random" part is kind of "outside" and invisible.



There is no time in the suggested picture in the sense that universe...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alex Rhatushnyak wrote on Aug. 16, 2016 @ 17:07 GMT
Thank you for the counter examples and other helpful comments!

We are looking and grand averages across all known phenomena, species, societies, etc. So it's not the case that a single counter example shows that the statement is false.

I am very interested in references to prior art:

anything with (MUH or CUH) and (Complexity levels or Descriptive complexity).

Not really interested in discussing popular beliefs like this one:

Eventually, as time progresses, the stars will burn out, black holes will consume all and then evaporate, and the universe will become empty and cold

"That hypothesis is self-evidently false"

How would you rephrase the sentence such that it doesn't look totally false to you? "Computational" instead of "mathematical"?

"Observationally indistinguishable" instead of "isomorphic" ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2016 @ 04:55 GMT
Hi Alex,

I accept that hyenas are not typical of all animals in the animal kingdom. How have you found / how are you going to find a grand average of all species and societies to substantiate the proactive reactive differentiation along gender divide? There is a huge diversity of behaviour within those species that do have separate sexes. Would you perhaps take one representative species of each family of animals within the kingdom to stand for all species and say whether the segregation your hypothesis puts forward is matched. With many millions of species you cannot do that for all of them, can You?. So even if found to match, its a grand approximation at best.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Jun. 28, 2017 @ 08:15 GMT
Darwinian Universal

The nature of the interaction between space and matter, what causes gravitational acceleration? is a question forefront in people’s minds. But also the nature of the universal orders we observe, atomic and cosmological structures being very non-random and articulated. I will speak briefly to these now, but please bear in mind that I can corner these considerations with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 05:27 GMT
Darwinian Universal

I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received, and for the community score that tallied. However I havent engaged with the community in discussions about it yet, either in a sense that might test it or allow me to elaborate further. I have added a post to my essay thread titled Darwinian Universal, which presents an explanation for why the concept of fundamental...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 07:28 GMT
Hello

I liked the link with this space. I consider that space does not exist but only matter and energy exist. The space in logic is in fact particles of gravitation I beleive and we have a serie of spherical volumes implying that this space disappears.The aether seems gravitational from the central cosmological singularity.

The matter not baryonic intereacts but how ?

Thannks for sharing your works

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Jul. 7, 2017 @ 05:51 GMT
Hi Steve

Sorry for the late reply. I havent been back to this page since posting that message.

Answer to your question, how space interacts with matter. It is simple a metabolism, whereby the elemental field of space which corresponds to Auv, provides the energy potential the fundamental forces require for their operation. Its an energy transfer and conversion to atomic force.

Best regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 7, 2017 @ 05:36 GMT
Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of nature.

Another force considered as fundamental is the strong nuclear force, for which the Gluon is the mediator, which importantly is the generator of “mass”, which is the property of matter which responds to gravitational fields. Or I could have said it like this “The strong nuclear force makes the “MASS” which...

view entire post


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.