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

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/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

Previous Contests

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

**Ray ASCHHEIM**: *on* 3/13/11 at 21:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Alex, Your essay may be a strong demonstration that Lorentz...

**Hector Zenil**: *on* 3/13/11 at 3:22am UTC, wrote Dear Alex, I'm glad to see you participating in the contest. Interesting...

**Paul Halpern**: *on* 3/11/11 at 15:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Alex, I very much enjoyed your essay, and your analysis of discrete...

**Alexander Lamb**: *on* 2/23/11 at 5:29am UTC, wrote Hi John, Thank you very much for following up on my ideas and writing...

**Alexander Lamb**: *on* 2/23/11 at 4:59am UTC, wrote Hi Honda, Delighted to hear your comment. I actually think that your...

**John Benavides**: *on* 2/21/11 at 11:42am UTC, wrote Dear Alex I read your extraordinary essay. The coincidences with what I am...

**Honda Shing**: *on* 2/21/11 at 7:42am UTC, wrote Dear Alex, Your essay gives me a lot to think about, especially the...

**Alexander Lamb**: *on* 2/14/11 at 16:47pm UTC, wrote **Essay Abstract** We propose that science should proceed under the...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Lorraine Ford**: "Ian Durham, Your way of measuring “free will” is based on an..."
*in* Measuring Free Will: Ian...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Re. my "Arms affected by mechanical forces..." There is the force at the..."
*in* Bonus Koan: Distant...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Lie groups, there are SU(N),SO(N),Sp(N), and the exceptional G_2, F_4, E_6,..."
*in* Measuring Free Will: Ian...

**Robert McEachern**: "Real measurements of what? Bell's theorem is a mathematical theorem, not a..."
*in* The Physics of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "People like Susan Schneider and Max Tegmark are barking up the wrong tree. ..."
*in* Designing the Mind: Susan...

**Georgina Woodward**: "I've tried to show that the spinning motion is not absolute (as the term is..."
*in* Bonus Koan: Distant...

**Steve Agnew**: "Here is a nice slide from Gu's talk that shows the superposition of..."
*in* Memory, Causality and...

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

August 20, 2019

CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]

TOPIC: Let's Call the Whole Thing Off/On by Alexander Lamb [refresh]

TOPIC: Let's Call the Whole Thing Off/On by Alexander Lamb [refresh]

We propose that science should proceed under the assumption that Nature is discrete unless discrete models are proved untenable. We outline an argument that explains the reasoning for this position. We also describe examples of simple quantized mechanisms which give reason to believe that the discrete approach can capture all the observed symmetries of nature.

Alexander Lamb is a freelance researcher in computational physics, network science, machine learning, and population modeling. When not conducting research, he works in both business simulation technology and communication skills training for scientists. He teaches improv theater, writes science fiction novels, and speaks internationally on the use of behavioral science and improv for organizational change, innovation, and maximizing creativity in scientific collaboration. Alex obtained his Masters in Artificial Intelligence from Edinburgh, UK, and has ongoing research collaborations with UC Santa Cruz, UC Berkeley, and CNR-ISTI in Pisa, Italy.

Dear Alex,

Your essay gives me a lot to think about, especially the quantum mechanics (section 3.3) part. Simplicity is beauty -- I fully agree with your point about aiming for the simpliest model. Nevertheless, personally, I wish you had predicted a higher chance for continuous models, especially after my essay proposing such a hyper-continuity model. :-)

Honda

report post as inappropriate

Your essay gives me a lot to think about, especially the quantum mechanics (section 3.3) part. Simplicity is beauty -- I fully agree with your point about aiming for the simpliest model. Nevertheless, personally, I wish you had predicted a higher chance for continuous models, especially after my essay proposing such a hyper-continuity model. :-)

Honda

report post as inappropriate

Hi Honda,

Delighted to hear your comment. I actually think that your hyper-continuity approach may be an excellent continuum approximation to the kind of structures I'm proposing. I don't know how far you've gone with creating a mathematical formalism for the sort of structures you discuss, but I'd be very interested to see what such a formalism would look like.

Here's an example of the sort of question your approach made me think of, and which I'd love to be able to answer:

If we associate with each point in an infinite set some other points from that same set, what are the requirements that have to be satisfied for some consensus notion of manifoldness to emerge from that set, even if that notion is not shared by every point?

Delighted to hear your comment. I actually think that your hyper-continuity approach may be an excellent continuum approximation to the kind of structures I'm proposing. I don't know how far you've gone with creating a mathematical formalism for the sort of structures you discuss, but I'd be very interested to see what such a formalism would look like.

Here's an example of the sort of question your approach made me think of, and which I'd love to be able to answer:

If we associate with each point in an infinite set some other points from that same set, what are the requirements that have to be satisfied for some consensus notion of manifoldness to emerge from that set, even if that notion is not shared by every point?

Dear Alex

I read your extraordinary essay. The coincidences with what I am trying to propose are so shocking that my legs are trembling. I try to explained why, I think you have the information I am missing. The discrete models that you are proposing are just a partial description of the order I am trying to find, that it explains why we see the properties of the classical world we see. Particularly, the fact of no locality in my approach is expressed by the fact that when we collapse to a classical world we are taking a generic ultrafilter on the order topology which is a global fact. The way you relate the nodes of the graph is just the structure of the order, for example, the Continuum Hypothesis example shows that if the order is not choosen right, we don't get the result in the classical world, this is what it is happening in your models. When you say how we should iterate your models what are you doing is describing how the order topology should behave locally, i.e. you are choosing the ultrafilter.

Finally your concern about the logic we should use it is missing something. We already use classical logic to describe and model quantum reality, it is what the classical approach does, but we can't understand very well quantum reality. What you do is construct your model by try and error and you try to explain why some iterating model gives the result you are looking for and others not. Why I am trying to say is that, if we introduce non classical logics, in my case a intuitionist one, we can explain these phenomena perfectly.

I would like to hear your opinions again.

J.Benavides

report post as inappropriate

I read your extraordinary essay. The coincidences with what I am trying to propose are so shocking that my legs are trembling. I try to explained why, I think you have the information I am missing. The discrete models that you are proposing are just a partial description of the order I am trying to find, that it explains why we see the properties of the classical world we see. Particularly, the fact of no locality in my approach is expressed by the fact that when we collapse to a classical world we are taking a generic ultrafilter on the order topology which is a global fact. The way you relate the nodes of the graph is just the structure of the order, for example, the Continuum Hypothesis example shows that if the order is not choosen right, we don't get the result in the classical world, this is what it is happening in your models. When you say how we should iterate your models what are you doing is describing how the order topology should behave locally, i.e. you are choosing the ultrafilter.

Finally your concern about the logic we should use it is missing something. We already use classical logic to describe and model quantum reality, it is what the classical approach does, but we can't understand very well quantum reality. What you do is construct your model by try and error and you try to explain why some iterating model gives the result you are looking for and others not. Why I am trying to say is that, if we introduce non classical logics, in my case a intuitionist one, we can explain these phenomena perfectly.

I would like to hear your opinions again.

J.Benavides

report post as inappropriate

Hi John,

Thank you very much for following up on my ideas and writing back. I'm very glad that you find merit in them. Certainly you're right that the kind of models I propose don't make ideal predictions. Each experimental particle only produces a single outcome. I'm also delighted that you're thinking about these topics from the continuum direction, as what my work lacks is a continuum approximation and I'm still struggling to generate one. (Regardless of whether we expect the universe to be continuous or discrete, it still appears continuous at familiar scales and a working physics theory needs to be able to reconcile with that fact in order to be useful!)

One researcher whose work you may be interested in is Andrei Khrennikov. I saw him talk at DICE 2010 and he was very persuasive. He has a working model of QM that is continuous but not dependent on complex numbers. It seems tantalizingly close to the wave expansion model that I employ. I'd be keen to hear your opinion of his approach and wonder if it may be of use to you.

Alex

Thank you very much for following up on my ideas and writing back. I'm very glad that you find merit in them. Certainly you're right that the kind of models I propose don't make ideal predictions. Each experimental particle only produces a single outcome. I'm also delighted that you're thinking about these topics from the continuum direction, as what my work lacks is a continuum approximation and I'm still struggling to generate one. (Regardless of whether we expect the universe to be continuous or discrete, it still appears continuous at familiar scales and a working physics theory needs to be able to reconcile with that fact in order to be useful!)

One researcher whose work you may be interested in is Andrei Khrennikov. I saw him talk at DICE 2010 and he was very persuasive. He has a working model of QM that is continuous but not dependent on complex numbers. It seems tantalizingly close to the wave expansion model that I employ. I'd be keen to hear your opinion of his approach and wonder if it may be of use to you.

Alex

Dear Alex,

I very much enjoyed your essay, and your analysis of discrete models and symmetry groups. Your "Principle of Minimal Complexity" seems useful. A fascinating and thorough approach!

Best wishes,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

I very much enjoyed your essay, and your analysis of discrete models and symmetry groups. Your "Principle of Minimal Complexity" seems useful. A fascinating and thorough approach!

Best wishes,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alex,

I'm glad to see you participating in the contest. Interesting essay.

Best.

report post as inappropriate

I'm glad to see you participating in the contest. Interesting essay.

Best.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alex,

Your essay may be a strong demonstration that Lorentz invariance is possible in a discrete approach. On some posts, some people just says that lack of Lorentz invariance simply falsify all discrete models. Your work deserve more impact. I hope that here, it will convince our FQXI community that Lorentz invariance is not incompatible with discrete models. We just have to see your youtube videos.

All the best

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Your essay may be a strong demonstration that Lorentz invariance is possible in a discrete approach. On some posts, some people just says that lack of Lorentz invariance simply falsify all discrete models. Your work deserve more impact. I hope that here, it will convince our FQXI community that Lorentz invariance is not incompatible with discrete models. We just have to see your youtube videos.

All the best

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.