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 3/9/11 at 15:42pm UTC, wrote Tony Have just re-read your essay properly (not difficult or I may not...

Tony: on 2/28/11 at 15:14pm UTC, wrote Thanks Jonathan - I'll check the articles you mentioned. And yes, the idea...

Jonathan Dickau: on 2/23/11 at 2:27am UTC, wrote Hello Tony, It appears that you are saying that since things evolve to...

Tony Zeigler: on 2/14/11 at 12:43pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract A very short essay that describes how the process...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "why the post about the team of Nassim and his friends cannot be accepted..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Rob,Eckards, Dear Rob,it is well said all this indeed.Friendly" in First Things First: The...

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...

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...


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: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Evolutionary Principles Result in Digital Appearance. by Tony Zeigler [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Tony Zeigler wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 12:43 GMT
Essay Abstract

A very short essay that describes how the process which laymen may refer to as evolution results in the appearance of a digital world.

Author Bio

Computer programmer.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 02:27 GMT
Hello Tony,

It appears that you are saying that since things evolve to have distinct forms in a shorter time frame than it takes to detect or observe them, this is what gives reality the appearance of discreteness. But there was insufficient detail to tell if that is what you really meant.

It is my guess that you are trying to hint at some of the beliefs of decoherence theory. You might want to check out this web-site maintained by Erich Joos, for some basic information and references on that subject.

You might also enjoy my essay, since I talk a little about both evolution and decoherence.

Please give us a little more next time.

Regards,

Jonathan J. Dickau

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tony replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 15:14 GMT
Thanks Jonathan - I'll check the articles you mentioned.

And yes, the idea was quite simple. Sadly, I never got the hang of doing math proofs - and thus the lack of equations. I just rely on my ability to visualize patterns.

Also - I'm poorly read in the area. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the path of thought had already been considered by others and I simply hadn't read about it yet!

The idea came to me when I was reading "Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious" and visualizing the forces that might result in radioactive materials. They seemed very similar to planetary escape velocity, or star clusters in the center of galaxies. All being systems that are unstable for some reason and kick out pieces of themselves as they try to reach a stable state.

The rate they fall apart, or move towards stability, seems to be related to size. A star cluster make wait eons before ejecting a member. The earth may wait centuries before a volcano manages to eject a rock into space. Atoms may go even faster still.

Follow the pattern as it scales down, and it suggests at some point we simply cannot detect the unstable forms because they stabilize too quickly. Ie., the pattern ends because we reach a limitation on ourselves - not because the pattern truly ends.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 15:42 GMT
Tony

Have just re-read your essay properly (not difficult or I may not have bothered!!) and been quite astonished how perceptive those few words are. I do hope you may read mine, from another non physicist, to see if you can find the correlations (and hopefully feel it's worth a good score!)

I'm effectively saying, in another way, the smallest particles condense to implement change. Everyone struggles to perceive the dynamic variables to start with, then find it's so unbeleivably simple it's simply unbelievable (to long trained physicists with relatively fixed viewpoints). The implications of that one sentence may however catch us up over 100 years! - if it gets noticed at all.

Please do let me know if you've read and seen it. I really need to understand how to better explain it (easy with moving pictures).

Many thanks

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.