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

Current Essay Contest


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

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/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 3/13/11 at 23:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Ryu Very interesting and somewhat original. I support the concepts...

Juno Ryu: on 2/13/11 at 17:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba, Thank you for your considerate reply. The motive of writing...

Juno Ryu: on 2/13/11 at 17:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Jurgensen, Thank you for your reading the trifling essay and giving a...

basudeba: on 2/13/11 at 15:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Ryu, We have gone through your excellent analysis and logical...

Russell Jurgensen: on 2/8/11 at 18:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Ryu, Thank you for your interesting essay using set theories. I...

Ryu juno: on 12/17/10 at 14:47pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract For a long time, many people had thought that the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Not one visible person has ever had any invisible finite “free-will.”..." in The Quantum Agent

Eckard Blumschein: "There are at least the following arguments against generalizing Fourier..." in The Quantum Agent

Malcolm Riddoch: "@Steve Agnew: “physical reality is made up of changes in matter action”..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "The most compelling evidence that the ability of white men of only being..." in Undecidability,...

Jack James: ""That is, instead of a world or physical laws, it is the local state of the..." in Could Consciousness Forge...

David Sloan: "Quick note: I have removed a post from this topic which is in discussion of..." in Undecidability,...

Lorraine Ford: "I’m waiting for you to say the words." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Words immediately spring to mind." in Emergent Reality: Markus...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Agent
Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

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.


FQXi FORUM
February 18, 2020

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Different Infinities and The Universe by Ryu Juno [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ryu juno wrote on Dec. 17, 2010 @ 14:47 GMT
Essay Abstract

For a long time, many people had thought that the nature should be smooth. It looks as if smoothness describes the universe in more aesthetical and stable way. `Analog', as being closely related to smoothness and infinity, seemed to provide the world eternity and stability. On the other hand, `Digital', although the concept that everything has its fundamental discrete elements had sprung from ancient time, looks rather bizarre and mortal to our analog-lly tamed eyes. It is only when atom was discovered, eventually something `digital' became genuine part of our physical reality. Unlike our physical conception, `digital' objects played main characters in mathematics. Mathematicians have struggled to build `analog' object as a rigous subject. Knowing that objects are composed of discrete elements raise us questions about discreteness of the fabric of space. This article will borrow its ground from set theories which can deal with both analog and digital properly. We will see what the nature should look like in set theories with finite elements and infinite elements. And see how we can use different infinities to understand the physics.

Author Bio

Non academic independent researcher.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Russell Jurgensen wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear Ryu,

Thank you for your interesting essay using set theories. I agree with your conclusion that spelling reality with mathematics will aid our understanding and help us know where to look and what to expect. I believe the excellent body of knowledge in physics gives us a good platform to find an accurate mathematical model. Thank you again for your carefully written...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Juno Ryu replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear Jurgensen,

Thank you for your reading the trifling essay and giving a warm reply. I hope to see learn more and deeper about the law of nature. Thank you again.

With regards,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Ryu,

We have gone through your excellent analysis and logical approach. There are many similarities in our views, though we may be expressing it differently. We have published a book on number theory derived from natural principles and defined each term precisely.

You define ‘digital’ as the set composed of countable elements. Counting is done by segregating objects that are perceived as similars. Thus, we define number as a property of objects by which we differentiate between similars. Each digit is differentiated from others before we sum it up. Thus, each digit is one by itself. Depending upon the repetition of perception, we assign the digit sequence different names that are called numbers. You define analog as it’s opposite. By opposite we assume opposite of clear perception. If the dimensions of an object are fully perceived – if it has finite dimensions, then it has a number. If the dimensions of an object are not perceived fully, then it cannot be said to have a number – it has infinite dimension. Thus, it is called infinity, which behaves like one – without similars (because if there is a similar object, then the dimensions of both would be perceptible). Thus, the mathematics involving one and infinities have similarities related to dimension only. For example, linear accumulation and reduction, i.e., addition and subtraction involving one is possible because of its finite dimension. Similar operations involving infinity are not possible because of its infinite dimension – thus the answer remains infinite. Non-linear accumulation and reduction, i.e., multiplication and division involving one does not change the number. The same is true for infinity except that since the dimension is not perceptible, the whole sequence becomes imperceptible. Infinity is different from a very big number, as the mathematics involving both are different. Thus, only space, time, direction (coordinates) are infinite in addition to cognition (perception). Hence only these are analog. All other objects are digital entities.

Cantor’s views that infinite set has different sorts: integer set and real number set cannot be 1-1 corresponded to each other can have meaning only in the digital context if we remember that digital entities are composites of real numbers, which are related to perception. For example, if one object is decomposed to five different parts, each of the five parts has the number one associated with it. However, this one is different from the previous one. The continuum hypothesis flows from the above. The Axioms of Choice can be highly misleading. In the photoelectric effect, it was found that intensity of light has no effect on electron emission – only wave length is crucial. Let us apply AC and occam’s razor, because the axiom doesn’t affect the physical reality. Hence we first drop it and see how one can build mathematical structure for physics. We will realize that in the case of an electron held only weakly by its atom – as in the case of cesium - intensity of light does have effect on electron emission. Till we find the exceptional behavior out, any theory formulated by applying AC would be misleading.

Space is the interval between objects. Since it is not perceptible by itself, it is described through alternative symbolism by describing the objects contained in it and assigning their properties to space. For example, we define the position of objects by measuring the interval from another object or a point with reference to the arrangement of objects by comparing it with a unit interval and call it space measurement. Since there is no true vacuum, the “energy flow due to density variation” in space affects the position and movement of objects. We call this as the curvature of space. Since the density is different at different points and since space is analog, your statement that space will be supposed to be locally connected is proved. For more details, you can read our essay.

Having said the similarities, let us discuss the differences in our approach. Quantum theory has been developed based on observational findings from different experiments set up for different purposes. The theories are not based on the analysis of natural phenomena. Subsequently, natural phenomena was sought to be explained through it. It is well known that people learn in two ways: from experiences and from education. The first is more time consuming, painful and may be dangerous and can mislead. We agree with you that theoretical reasoning and experimental verifications are two cornerstones of physics. But this sequence should not be reversed. Nature is the greatest teacher. By ignoring it and choosing to learn from experience, we have landed in a scenario where there is not a single theory that can be said as quantum theory. It has various interpretations that are not consistent with one another. There is no unanimity as to what constitutes reality. The measurement problem is hinting at the inadequacy of many interpretations. The hypothetical particles like Higg’s boson or graviton will never be found out. Yet, it provides a large number of people sustenance for leading a cozy life at public expenses by perpetuating the cult of incomprehensibility. Failures are never publicized. But possibility of success is highly exaggerated. One example is LHC experiment.

There are many questions and challenges to Big Bang, which are also well known. Now Big Bounce is taking over and we support this view, though we have a different explanation for this phenomenon (and a different mechanism). We treat gravity as a composite force that stabilizes – whether it is the planetary orbits or the atomic orbitals. In our essay we have discussed the uncertainty principle to show that it arises from the laws of Nature, but has been wrongly interpreted.

We warn you of one danger. Since we are going against "main stream physics" (which in other words means blind acceptance of majority opinion even on the face of evidence to the contrary), our comments are looked upon as "dirtying" the "clean" physics. But we are assured that TRUTH WILL ULTIMATELY PREVAIL.

Regards

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Juno Ryu replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Thank you for your considerate reply. The motive of writing the essay was rather to intrigue 'a' possibility of seeing the physics with a fragment of mathematical concept than to argue that we have thorough theory or so. I guess the essay only mumbles. To pursue the understanding of the universe from as many view points as possible would not be the worst for mankind. Hope our happy journey goes on.

With Regards,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 23:17 GMT
Dear Ryu

Very interesting and somewhat original. I support the concepts of infinite sets and re-connecting with reality, if in different ways. Very good for a non academic researcher, which also describes me.

I hope you may also like my essay which is very non technical and reality based, with infinite 'discrete fields' equivalent to infinite sets and yielding an astonishing logical solution. I hope you can read and support it before the deadline tomorrow, but you may need good conceptual dynamic visualisation skills to part the veil.

Very 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.