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.

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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Dizhechko Semyonovich**: *on* 4/7/17 at 3:36am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

**George Gantz**: *on* 4/5/17 at 13:37pm UTC, wrote Michael - A fascinating essay! I confess that my mathematics is not up...

**Michael Manthey**: *on* 3/18/17 at 0:47am UTC, wrote Hi Pete - Many thanks for your several comments. I much enjoyed reading...

**Satyavarapu Gupta**: *on* 3/17/17 at 8:33am UTC, wrote Nice essay Manthey, Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg… 1....

**peter cameron**: *on* 3/17/17 at 4:17am UTC, wrote Michael, Very glad to see your work on Clifford algebra here (tho its...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 3/16/17 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Michael Manthey, Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a...

**Michael Manthey**: *on* 3/15/17 at 19:40pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe Fisher - I'm all for simplicity! But I just don't think things...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 3/15/17 at 16:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Michael Manthey, Please excuse me for I have no intention of...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Agnew**: "The mind-body problem is among the many questions that people continue to..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Hi Jason, the video is categorized as entertainment."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Steve Dufourny**: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**John Cox**: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

**John Cox**: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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

January 19, 2020

CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]

TOPIC: Causality & Teleology by Michael Manthey [refresh]

TOPIC: Causality & Teleology by Michael Manthey [refresh]

I address the question, “What is the relationship between causality – the explanation of events in terms of causes – and teleology – the explanation of events in terms of purposes?” by equating distributed computation with the semantics of geometric (Clifford) algebra over Zed(3) = {0,1,2} = {0,1,-1}. I conclude that both explanations are simultaneously and equally true, and that the whole thing is made out of space, whose essence is Void.

BS Mathematics, Rensselaer; Phd Computer Science SUNY/Buffalo. Have taught computer architecture, operating and real-time systems, and networks at universities in both Europe and USA.

Oops!

1. Page 2: "if-a-then-X-else-Y": it's a dot product with plus/minus a, and "1 dot +-a" = 0.

2. Page 5,: middle: Replace

"Looking at the skeleton above"

with

"Looking at the skeleton below (next page)

Apologies! Friday nite was too short -

-mm

1. Page 2: "if-a-then-X-else-Y": it's a dot product with plus/minus a, and "1 dot +-a" = 0.

2. Page 5,: middle: Replace

"Looking at the skeleton above"

with

"Looking at the skeleton below (next page)

Apologies! Friday nite was too short -

-mm

Dr Manthey,

Wow! At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.

Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?

Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is...

view entire post

Wow! At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.

Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?

Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Richard Benish -

> Wow!

Thanks for the Up - I've been bakin' this for some time now, and this is the first public tasting.

> At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "visually" ... superficially? Howsoever, the underlying computational ideas - from which all of this *derives* - came to me in the 1990's. I knew right off that I was onto something, but with software (as with so many things) if you don't have some mathematics on it, you ain't got so much. It just took me this long to figure all the pieces.

> Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?

I agree that this purely mathematical version - namely sans the inspiring computational source - is kinda dense. The two referenced websites,

RootsOfUnity.org (AI slant) and TauQuernions.org (physics slant)

have a more balanced presentation. This essay is a condensed cross-section of the former, along with some unpublished material. My [most excellent] students did three successive implementations in the 90's - it all worked just fine.

> Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is (3+1)-dimensional.

This is as I state. Maybe (re your point ++) you are on to something, maybe not - I don't know. Myself, I'm just very pleased that, coming in from a completely novel point of view, I (or rather, the algebra, and uniquely so) landed me square in the middle of the Standard Model of physics, with a novel QM/GR bridging as a cherry on top. I'm just a humble computer scientist and mathematics 'user' with neither the need nor the desire to overly annoy the physicists ;-)

> Wow!

Thanks for the Up - I've been bakin' this for some time now, and this is the first public tasting.

> At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "visually" ... superficially? Howsoever, the underlying computational ideas - from which all of this *derives* - came to me in the 1990's. I knew right off that I was onto something, but with software (as with so many things) if you don't have some mathematics on it, you ain't got so much. It just took me this long to figure all the pieces.

> Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?

I agree that this purely mathematical version - namely sans the inspiring computational source - is kinda dense. The two referenced websites,

RootsOfUnity.org (AI slant) and TauQuernions.org (physics slant)

have a more balanced presentation. This essay is a condensed cross-section of the former, along with some unpublished material. My [most excellent] students did three successive implementations in the 90's - it all worked just fine.

> Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is (3+1)-dimensional.

This is as I state. Maybe (re your point ++) you are on to something, maybe not - I don't know. Myself, I'm just very pleased that, coming in from a completely novel point of view, I (or rather, the algebra, and uniquely so) landed me square in the middle of the Standard Model of physics, with a novel QM/GR bridging as a cherry on top. I'm just a humble computer scientist and mathematics 'user' with neither the need nor the desire to overly annoy the physicists ;-)

Michael Manthey,

Question: What is objective test of awareness?

You stated that question but evaded with short assumption. Further probe and detail of it is required.

Awareness is collective state of disturbance by an information (entropic event).

report post as inappropriate

Question: What is objective test of awareness?

You stated that question but evaded with short assumption. Further probe and detail of it is required.

Awareness is collective state of disturbance by an information (entropic event).

report post as inappropriate

Shaikh Raisuddin -

Thanks for reading my essay.

> Awareness is collective state of disturbance by an information (entropic event).

I agree - this is a central theme of the essay in that, as stated, the erection of the hierarchy is entropically favored: Info(a+b) > Info(ab). See "TauQuernions: 3+1d Dissipative Space out of Quantum Mechanics" for this and related calculations.

I write that awareness is a persistent *resonance*, a more precise statement of your "collective state of disturbance".

> Question: What is objective test of awareness? You stated that question but evaded with short assumption. Further probe and detail of it is required.

I actually explicitly signed up for a different question, namely causality vs. purpose, in the essay's first sentence. The actual Test is, as noted in the last sentence, to be found in "The Topsy Test for Awareness" ... I didn't have room to include a description of the test in the essay, but wanted to point to it. I'm unsure what "short assumption" you are referring to.

-mm

Thanks for reading my essay.

> Awareness is collective state of disturbance by an information (entropic event).

I agree - this is a central theme of the essay in that, as stated, the erection of the hierarchy is entropically favored: Info(a+b) > Info(ab). See "TauQuernions: 3+1d Dissipative Space out of Quantum Mechanics" for this and related calculations.

I write that awareness is a persistent *resonance*, a more precise statement of your "collective state of disturbance".

> Question: What is objective test of awareness? You stated that question but evaded with short assumption. Further probe and detail of it is required.

I actually explicitly signed up for a different question, namely causality vs. purpose, in the essay's first sentence. The actual Test is, as noted in the last sentence, to be found in "The Topsy Test for Awareness" ... I didn't have room to include a description of the test in the essay, but wanted to point to it. I'm unsure what "short assumption" you are referring to.

-mm

Dear Dr. Michael Manthey,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe Fisher -

I'm all for simplicity!

But I just don't think things can get much simpler than a binary vector algebra that, on a*purely combinatorial basis*, hones (and homes) in *all by itself* to a *unique* set of forms that, Lo and Behold, *exactly* match the Standard Model, with a gravitational coda thrown in for free. Oh, and don't forget wave-particle duality, Noether's theorem, and entropic favor - they come for free too.

Plus, as I've described in the essay, Everything can be construed as an entangled, aware, and maybe self-aware, Whole made out of Space.

This from pure mathematics - geometric (Clifford) algebra - interpreted as distributed computation, cf. the original Essay Question!

The apparent divergence from Simplicity lies in the difficulty of communicating said simplicity to the time-like Turing-limited mind that we all inhabit all day long, whilst the prophets weep!

-mm

I'm all for simplicity!

But I just don't think things can get much simpler than a binary vector algebra that, on a

Plus, as I've described in the essay, Everything can be construed as an entangled, aware, and maybe self-aware, Whole made out of Space.

This from pure mathematics - geometric (Clifford) algebra - interpreted as distributed computation, cf. the original Essay Question!

The apparent divergence from Simplicity lies in the difficulty of communicating said simplicity to the time-like Turing-limited mind that we all inhabit all day long, whilst the prophets weep!

-mm

Michael,

Very glad to see your work on Clifford algebra here (tho its sophistication far exceeds my grasp), and agree that it provides excellent framework for Standard Model physics and beyond.

Are you familiar with the work of David Hestenes? His geometric calculus web page has a wealth of information.

http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/

I much like the FQXi search engine. Searching for any of the three terms 'geometric Clifford algebra' gives what appear to me to be useful links to other essays in this year's Forum Posts section.

In particular I think you might find the essay submitted by Michaele Suisse especially relevant.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2913

While much less elegant and abstract than your remarkable work, it has the beginnings of a good solid grounding in the practical. It appears to me they support each other well.

Best regards,

Pete

report post as inappropriate

Very glad to see your work on Clifford algebra here (tho its sophistication far exceeds my grasp), and agree that it provides excellent framework for Standard Model physics and beyond.

Are you familiar with the work of David Hestenes? His geometric calculus web page has a wealth of information.

http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/

I much like the FQXi search engine. Searching for any of the three terms 'geometric Clifford algebra' gives what appear to me to be useful links to other essays in this year's Forum Posts section.

In particular I think you might find the essay submitted by Michaele Suisse especially relevant.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2913

While much less elegant and abstract than your remarkable work, it has the beginnings of a good solid grounding in the practical. It appears to me they support each other well.

Best regards,

Pete

report post as inappropriate

Hi Pete -

Many thanks for your several comments. I much enjoyed reading your and Michaele Suisse's essay, and am thinking that your impedance is my hierarchy dynamics.

So we are, I think, very much on the same page, not just re geometric algebra but also re the multitude of puzzlements stemming from the lack of *structure* in the formulations of quantum mechanics. I have recently realized - please correct me if I'm wrong - that the whole of physics, not least QM, is formulated as *necessarily* all taking place in 3+1d. The early history of QM explains this "seeing is believing" operationalism, but cannot continue to justify the prejudice.

Instead, I've come to think of the situation via the analogy, "An operating system is to its 'user' processes as quantum mechanics is to the (relativistic) processes in 3+1d". My approach is thoroughly that of a computer scientist trying to figure out how Nature builds her amazing self-organizing distributed systems. That is, my points of departure all lay within computer science, and from there over hill and dale, mountain and valley, to finally meet physics in Clifford City.

One of the first lessons is the realization that there *must* be an underlying (or, rather, behind-the-scenes) agent that supplies the necessary synchronization, one that is cognizant of the potential interactions between processes, and allows them to run as appropriate to maintain given exclusionary constraints. That is, something that is in charge of managing the system's *potential*. So I think this analogy is quite accurate in the context it sets, so long as 'scheduling' is driven by entropy alone!

Re links to Clifford algebras, I can recommend Stephen Slehar's excellent blog.

-mike

Many thanks for your several comments. I much enjoyed reading your and Michaele Suisse's essay, and am thinking that your impedance is my hierarchy dynamics.

So we are, I think, very much on the same page, not just re geometric algebra but also re the multitude of puzzlements stemming from the lack of *structure* in the formulations of quantum mechanics. I have recently realized - please correct me if I'm wrong - that the whole of physics, not least QM, is formulated as *necessarily* all taking place in 3+1d. The early history of QM explains this "seeing is believing" operationalism, but cannot continue to justify the prejudice.

Instead, I've come to think of the situation via the analogy, "An operating system is to its 'user' processes as quantum mechanics is to the (relativistic) processes in 3+1d". My approach is thoroughly that of a computer scientist trying to figure out how Nature builds her amazing self-organizing distributed systems. That is, my points of departure all lay within computer science, and from there over hill and dale, mountain and valley, to finally meet physics in Clifford City.

One of the first lessons is the realization that there *must* be an underlying (or, rather, behind-the-scenes) agent that supplies the necessary synchronization, one that is cognizant of the potential interactions between processes, and allows them to run as appropriate to maintain given exclusionary constraints. That is, something that is in charge of managing the system's *potential*. So I think this analogy is quite accurate in the context it sets, so long as 'scheduling' is driven by entropy alone!

Re links to Clifford algebras, I can recommend Stephen Slehar's excellent blog.

-mike

Nice essay Manthey,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. From a probabilistic point of view, the external behavior generated by the hierarchy, which is governed by, driven by, internal, long-term stability-based goals, can easily and naturally be construed as goal-directed, which it indeed is. But the actual goals - inherently invisible from the outside, and devoted to...

view entire post

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. From a probabilistic point of view, the external behavior generated by the hierarchy, which is governed by, driven by, internal, long-term stability-based goals, can easily and naturally be construed as goal-directed, which it indeed is. But the actual goals - inherently invisible from the outside, and devoted to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Michael -

A fascinating essay! I confess that my mathematics is not up to the details of your essay, but the surprising conclusion is completely consistent with my own thesis - that the intention which moves agent processes in the universe is love.

Regards -

George Gantz (The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention)

report post as inappropriate

A fascinating essay! I confess that my mathematics is not up to the details of your essay, but the surprising conclusion is completely consistent with my own thesis - that the intention which moves agent processes in the universe is love.

Regards -

George Gantz (The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention)

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.