An Accidental Universe

Rob,

You write, quoting Buridan's principle (Lamport): 'A discrete decision based upon an input having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a bounded length of time.' And comment:

"Start listening to a sound with a "continuous range of values", like a sinusoid. Then attempt to make a discrete decision - that you have tired of listening and wish to stop and reply to this comment. If what you say is true, I suppose I will never hear from you again, since you will be unable to ever make the decision."

As I said before, you are trying to apply anthrocentric reasoning to a general problem. Buridan's principle applies first to the arbiter problem -- how to assure allocation of computing resources to a fair decision at any particular moment. As you allow, *some* decision can always be made. What Lamport found, is that in any *bounded length of time* there is no way to prevent some 'ass' from starving, i.e., to prevent accidents: "The status of continuity in quantum physics is less clear than in classical physics. The laws of quantum mechanics (such as Schroedinger's equation) are continuous, and the Uncertainty Principle, like random noise, seems to prohibit only the deliberate starvation of the ass, not its accidental starvation."

Applied to the multiverse and assuming an unbounded length of time, Buridan's principle makes an accidental universe not only plausible but inevitable.

Quoting me: 'I do not assume memoryless particles'.

"You have, whether you realize it or not. An entity with sufficient memory can *always* use the contents of that memory to modify an input signal, to avoid all the problems you have discussed. If nothing else, it can digitize it, so that it is no longer continuous."

Right. See above. The problem is not that a decision cannot be made, it's that there is no schema to guarantee that any decision in a bounded length of time won't lead to "starvation."

Quoting me, 'You don't seem to understand that if the world cannot be described by an algorithm shorter than itself (Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity) -- i.e., is not algorithmically compressible -- then it *is* random at foundation.'

"I understand that quite well. However, I was not discussing how to formulate algorithmic descriptions of the world, I was discussing the 'hardware' requirements for running any such algorithm; the entire universe does not seem to contain enough 'hardware' to predict some events before they occur. That is the ultimate 'cause' of free-will."

A program can run on any substrate (that's the source of Minsky's description of humans as computers made of meat). What Chaitin found, is that the choice of program (equivalent in our context to Albecht's choice of clock) affects the computation; Chaitin's number - the halting probability of a Turing machine -- outputs a different result depending on the computer language running the algorithm. There's randomness even in arithmetic. (If you are interested, my ICCS 2007 powerpoint and paper discuss this subject.)

As to free will, I don't find it to be based in the inherent randomness of the universe; rather, I find that Wheeler's hypothesis of a participatory creation consistent with both relativity and quantum theory, in the free choice of initial conditions. I am also encouraged by Joy Christian's research in continuous measurement functions and quantum correlations -- because if nature has a free choice ("God had a choice in creating the world") so do we.

Quoting me: 'logical consistency alone is no test of a physical theory'

"I did not know we were discussing a testable physical theory. I was discussing the untestable, metaphysical multiverse hypothesis. What have you been discussing? If you have a testable physical theory that you wish to discuss, please identify it and the test."

Working on that. We haven't even gotten that far in this discussion, however. One has to accept that given an unbounded length of time' Albrecht's hypothesis *is* testable. Einstein relativity describes the universe as "finite but unbounded" -- meaning bounded in time at the cosmological singularity and unbounded in space by Riemannian geometry. I maintain that the theory does not suffer any loss of meaning when describing the world as finite in space and unbounded in time. Can one disprove my conjecture? -- if not, we have the physical basis for Albrecht's clock ambiguity.

Tom

PS. The above cited experiment was on particles observed from very close by, and moving comparatively slowly, rather like my example with the bacteria. There are many other experiments that confirmed SR listed here

http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/RT/srtest.html

In your last post you say 'how can this be so?' That's ironic - I keep telling you, we don't know, we're trying to find out.

Constantinos,

You write, " ... I am arguing all Basic Law of Physics likewise can and should be formulated and derived as 'mathematical identities'. Take this as a call and not an established fact."

I have tried to explain to you that it is not possible to make it a fact (i.e., a theorem). Here is the simplified reason: For any self-consistent mathematical formulation that describes a physical phenomenon, there are any number of equivalent formulations that do not. Conversely, for any physical phenomenon described by mathematics, there are any number of phenomena that remain unexplained by mathematical language. We only say that we have understood a phenomenon when we do formalize it in mathematical language.

" ... Spacetime, for example, is not real yet believed to be real. On the other hand, 'the moon really is there when no one is looking'!"

Spacetime is most certainly physically real in the theory of general relativity, as the eclipse experiment -- and the accurate prediction of the precession of Mercury's orbit -- demonstrate, and which are validated by physical measurement.

"As for "domain" and "range", are you saying "Domain" is Math while "Range" is Nature? More reasoning at the fringes of reality!"

It's truly astounding to me that you would make such a statement -- domain and range, along with other concepts such as limit and function, are simply fundamental tools of mathematics.

Tom

Paul,

Easy to get lost in your own thinking. Let me rephrase!

Are you married? Do you truly know your wife?

Constantinos

Paul,

I am glad you agree with me that, "Your 'factually correct statements' may be factually correct to you. But they are 'blatant misunderstandings' of my arguments". I should leave it at that! But you wont like that! So ...

If you are trying to say you can doubt and dispute and deny any argument anyone has to make, I have no doubts. If you are trying to say only what you 'know' has any meaning and relevance, again I fooly agree with you. If you are trying to say you are the 'absolute reference' of all that you know and understand and exists, you have no argument from me.

But if you are saying, all that you know and all that exists for everyone and forever is what you know and in principle exists for you, than we'll butt heads over such claims. And this is what happens with all 'metaphysical/religious' claims. As yours is.

I have a more inclusive view! And no 'metaphysics'. But it does require that you understand the Nature of Mathematics! And how mathematical identities are valid for everyone! The Pythagorean Theorem, for example, does not depend on whether you understand it or not. It simply does not need your 'absolute self-reference' in order for it to be true! It is objectively true for everyone forever.

And that is the difference that makes all the difference!

Constantinos

Tom,

The "hardware" problem is not the amount of computing power, to run some program, or when it will halt. The problem is the amount of memory required to store all the initial conditions; the universe lacks the memory capacity to "symbolically represent itself" in any way other than simply "being there" - it symbolizes itself, by merely being itself.

Suppose one creates a universe, one elementary (memoryless) particle at a time. Start with one particle, then add another. Specifying the position and momentum of the second particle, relative to the first, in a 3-D space, requires a 6-fold infinity of bits of information, *if* those positions and momentums can take on any random value. This two-particle universe has no memory capacity to store those initial conditions, *except* by simply being itself. As you add more particles, to create bigger universes, you only compound the problem.

However, if the particle positions and momentums are merely pseudo-random, then this problem is eliminated. But then so is the need for any multiverse - all the initial conditions are fully determined by a finite pseudo-random generator - no infinity of universes is needed to account for that.

Lamport's paper begins by stating a problem in which no decision is made; The ass never moves at all, because it cannot decide in which direction it should proceed - it never "get off the dime". The author then says he can describe this situation mathematically. However, instead of doing so, he proceeds to describe an entirely different situation. In this second situation, the ass has *already made the decision to move*, and the author proceeds to describe a Zeno-paradox-like reason for why the ass cannot implement the decision - it cannot arrive at the end-point. Even if the author had managed to describe an actual decision problem, I would nevertheless maintain the the problem only lies within the mathematical model of a physical system, not the physical system per se. Unlike some, i believe they are not one and the same thing.

Rob McEachern

Tom,

Obviously Buridan never owned an ass. They may be dumb, but not indecisive. It would first go to one, pick through the best and go over and check out the other. Never know when another ass might show up, so desert first.;-)

Keep in mind that opposites balance, they don't necessarily cancel, or nothing would exist. Yin doesn't negate yang. What you have are two inclinations; that of mass to coalesce and of energy to disperse. So not only does inertia pull opposites together into balance, but the void of infinity disperses them out.

So yes, reality is both bounded by inertia and unbounded by infinity. We think of infinity as space, while inertia is the cessation of action, thus time is bounded. Yet it is not bounded by some spatial focal point 13.7 billion years ago, but by the elemental inertia of now.

Absolute and infinite.

Jim:

Jim George Snowdon feb. 14

"What if we simply do away with time as fundamental and not let it emerge? What if we have motion in our timeless Universe? What if our clocks only measure durations elapsing?"

Answering your post of February 14, I think you are right to reject "time" because as I say is just a remnant word, and also right when you leave motion in the universe, just because "time does not have existence, and right in that clocks just measure "movement", because if you said "measuring durations elapsing" the intent dictionary definition of "duration" implies the use of the word "time" for which we don't have definition, so my definition of Duration is: A period of change or transformation allowed for movement and limited by men. There it is not change, transformation or alteration without movement. The so called "time" is movement any kind of movement, every movement.

Héctor

Rob,

You've managed to entirely miss the point.

"Even if the author had managed to describe an actual decision problem, I would nevertheless maintain the the problem only lies within the mathematical model of a physical system, not the physical system per se. Unlike some, i believe they are not one and the same thing."

The author did describe an actual decision problem -- he's an expert in the field. It's irrelevant whether you believe mathematical models and physical systems are identical; the principle addresses real world conditions in real world terms, both computationally and physically.

I'm pressed for time. I'll detail a response to the rest of your concerns later.

Tom

Tom,

'Spacetime' is a mathematical construction. If you don't believe me, try going back to change your past! And so are 'domain' and 'range' and 'mappings', etc. etc. All mathematical creations invented by humans. If you ever wonder about their physical reality just ask my "man in the street".

In my view, there are no 'physical laws' that cannot be 'mathematical truisms'. You can't use Godel's Proof here! To think you can is another 'metaphysical assumption'. But knowing which identity applies to specific phenomenon ... that's another matter! That is a matter for physicists. But I provide a clue: a 'mathematical identity' applies whenever ALL of its premises are known to be true.

Can there be many that apply? Of course! To any set of conditions (premises) many conclusions can be true. But none contradictory. Simply put, there are many truths to any situation. We choose depending on what we seek! And that brings us back to our 'common humanity' of strife and strive! There is no 'end to physics'. Just more new beginnings!

As for the "astounding" comment at the end of my previous post. Don't take my "poetic license" as a "license to kill" debate! But I do have a more substantive idea in mind here. Though 'domain', 'range' etc. are as you say "fundamental tools of mathematics" they are but ideas. "Reasoning at the fringes of reality" is "thinking beyond our senses". But physics must make sense or it isn't physics! Richard Feynman said: "If you can't explain it to the man sitting on the bar stool next to you, you don't really understand it". My "man in the street" is Feynman's "man at the stool".

Constantinos

Rob,

You write, " ... the universe lacks the memory capacity to 'symbolically represent itself' in any way other than simply 'being there' - it symbolizes itself, by merely being itself."

If the universe is a quantum, we have no need of physical science. Science does not equate knowing with being -- objective knowledge has to describe correspondence between phenomena and language. A universe that simply "is" has no objective value.

"Suppose one creates a universe, one elementary (memoryless) particle at a time. Start with one particle, then add another. Specifying the position and momentum of the second particle, relative to the first, in a 3-D space, requires a 6-fold infinity of bits of information, *if* those positions and momentums can take on any random value."

That is true.

"This two-particle universe has no memory capacity to store those initial conditions, *except* by simply being itself. As you add more particles, to create bigger universes, you only compound the problem."

What problem? A 2-particle universe (bit) *does* have memory capacity, or else it would be a 1-particle universe.

"However, if the particle positions and momentums are merely pseudo-random, then this problem is eliminated."

The dynamic relation between components of a bit *cannot* be pseudo-random, any more than a coin toss probability can be pseudo-random. A fair coin produces entirely random results.

"But then so is the need for any multiverse - all the initial conditions are fully determined by a finite pseudo-random generator - no infinity of universes is needed to account for that."

*What* finite pesudo-random generator? Only the one in your head, since you are creating this universe.

I covered the answer to Lamport's paper already. You misunderstand it.

Tom

Constantinos,

We have entirely different and conflicting views of mathematics. I'm going to have to leave it at that.

Tom

Tom,

Momentum and memory are not the same thing.

Jim:

I find out that that "time" is "movement" change, transformation, 48 years ago I thought was something transcendental the most important thing I was going to do in my whole intellectual life, the next morning I thought if was of not use, that was good for nothing. I let this sleep for more than 30 years, till reading "Scientific American" I find out that theoretical physics were desperately looking for it for the last 50 years now, I wrought a book, nobody read it I am working exclusively on it for the last 18 years , with the "magic" wander that the so called "time" is "movement", through the years I found many valuable things especially for theoretical physics, I left aside my profession as physician and psychiatrist, theoretical physicists don't pay any attention to what I say, first because, because they protect themselves from us, and second because they think the subject "time" is inherent to their discipline. Rovelly George Musser from Scientific American read many things of mine through the years that we keep correspondence they thought were interesting but I fail to get my idea through, Steve Savitt with my correspondence to him I never told him that "time" were "movement" I was giving him data and hoping he discovered himself and I failed too. Since the very beginning with pre Socratic Heraclito 2600 years ago many people were really close to found it and the reason they didn't were almost always the same. The people that are close, use almost the same words that I do, but they did not reach that "time" is "movement", because they use words with no definition, as "time" and derivatives as timing, as duration, than of course they give them a similar meaning, but not the real meaning that can be proved, or as Sean Carroll said referring to "time" "We used every day, of course exist" when he said we used, he only could mean, we measure it every day, and how he know that what we are measuring is "time"? and no movement?. They also make a lot of mixtures with past, present and future, they wrongly refer to "time units" with the clock they usually are not precise of what they are measuring with it, or how these probably start millenniums ago and keep going till the present. Which help to understand most. They should ask themselves what we are measuring? instead of What is "time"? , if they did that already everybody now will know "the nature of time". Heraclito said "time" must be a manifestation of "movement", Aristotle said "time" must be "movement", a few lines after he retract himself in those times they were much closer than any philosopher or physicist today. Why I tell you all this story because you are the among the ones that are closer than nobody else. I am going to tell you were the confusions are and also what the practical uses of this to understand many physical problems as "the twins paradox" "time dilation" or "relativistic time" how and why inertia and gravity slow the so called "time". GPS etc. What I am doing is replacing "time" by "movement" . People have "time" fixed in their brains. Hector

Tom,

If it is your position that "A universe that simply "is" has no objective value.", and you are a very, very small part of such a universe, am I to conclude that you have no objective value, or that everything you say has no objective value?

I do not dispute that "A 2-particle universe (bit) *does* have memory capacity", on the order of one bit. But as I explained, the requirement is to pack a 6-fold infinity of bits into that memory. If you can enlighten me as to how you propose to do that, then, as the Beatles said, "We'd all love to hear your plan."

Regarding "since you are creating this universe.", I'm flattered that you think me powerful enough to create a universe. But I assure you I cannot, anymore that anyone else can create a multiverse, by merely wishing it exist.

Rob McEachern

Constantinos

I did not get lost, I need an answer to the quesations I asked.

Paul

Anonymousse

"You're quite simply wrong. People have believed that time dilation exists for a century, having derived it from theory, and then having confirmed it by experiment"

And as I keep saying when you make this assertion, please explain, in simple language, how it works then. Obviously, you know, because you have consulted the relevant theories /experiments.

There is no need to do extensive studying, one just needs to know what the concept is, and its derivation which assists understanding why it went wrong. Indeed, in my post 23/2 16.00, I posted a 10 para extract of the argument, which you did not respond to.

Throughout this exchange you have not substantiated your assertions (ie responded to simple questions I have posed), just stated that it is in the books/experiements have proved it so

Paul

Constantinos

I do not agree with you.

"If you are trying to say you...." I am saying neither of these. Please read what I write, not what you interpret it as. A repeat:

There is existence. But as we are part of it, we can only be aware of what, we must presume to be, one form of existence. It may or may not be, but that is irrelevant anyway, since we can know no other. This form of existence (which I label physical existence) has a definitive form, and limitation, by virtue of the physical process underpinning it. That is, the process which enables its independent (from us) existence and our awareness of it (ie the receipt of physical input). So, any statement made, can, and must, be validated against that. Correctness is being judged from within a closed system. Whether what is real/correct from within this closed system is what is 'really' happening, we can never know. There is always the possibility of an alternative, but it can never be attained, so the whole notion of an extrinsic reference is incorrect.

"I have a more inclusive view! And no 'metaphysics'"

Whenever I say 'you/me' I am referring to all sentient organisms. Obviously, my argument is not about individuality, neither do humans have some exclusive 'take' on existence. You do involve metaphysics, unless you invoke the very presumptions I am referring to. Because we exist, so automatically that entails possible presumptions, as existence might be something entirely different. Mathematics is a representational device, an alternative to (say) narrative, or graphics. It has no inherent validity. There must be a reference against which validity, albeit within a circumstance, is tested. Theories, or at least valid ones, ie as opposed to hypotheses, are generalisations based on validated events. There is nothing inherently invalid with theories. Obviously, there is the caveat that, as with any knowledge, it is only valid 'as of now'. But that is a development point, and as time passes, there will be indications that, ie with no further knowledge arising, that we have 'got it right'. That is, we have found out all we can know, from within, and about, the closed system.

Paul

Tom

"Science does not equate knowing with being"

!! So what is it then, a religion? Obviously the whole point of science is to establish what is 'there', albeit from a particular perspective. But we have no choice in that as we are part of it. And as Rob says, there is something there. We cannot know what it 'really' is, or why it is 'really' there, etc. Our start point is that there is something there, as manifest to us, and we are engaged in explaining that manifestation. That is, equating knowledge with being.

Paul