An Accidental Universe

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

Hector,

You have a full basement!

I have read your January 16th, post many times.

What we have is `nothingness`, when it comes to time. The Earth`s constant rotational motion has provided us with a measurement baseline,

based on which, we have measured durations elapsing. Duration elapsing measures the `nothingness`. Our clocks measure duration elapsing.

I discovered FQXi by googling Carlo Rovelli. Carlo Rovelli was entered in the Nature of Time essay contest. At that time, it was only a few weeks before the contest`s close! I had a heavey work schedule, and I didn`t manage to sit down and write the essay, until the morning of the day it had to be in. I would not call the essay polished, but I believe it conveys the essential storyline in simple terms. The essay is called `Things Happen`, it`s only one page long.

The attached thread comments are likewise brief, I think you would enjoy reading them.

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

Alright, I'll try briefly. The only reason I didn't back up what I was saying in the places you mention is that everyone knows this stuff. I thought you knew it too, and you should if you're going to discuss physics.

Time dilation is the (proven) fact that when an observer watches an object in motion, the observed time rate onboard the object, that is the actual rate of the ageing process as seen from the observer's viewpoint, is slowed by

sqrt [1 - (v/c)^2]

This leaves lasting efects behind it, in some situations. The 'twins paradox' is an example. Another version of that is the point I made about watching your fingers typing. I've done a lot of that while trying to get some basic physics into your head, and as a result have kept the cells in my fingers younger than they'd otherwise have been.

In a recent post, you say "Movement does not determine duration of existence." That is a conclusion you draw purely from consulting your intuition, and it's wrong. Physics is often counter-intuitive, and it is in this case. Movement does indeed determine duration of existence - expoeriment has shown this beyond doubt. Or rather, experiment has shown that there's a link between duration of existence and movement. We don't know what it is, but they're closely linked.

And as experiment is the use of equipment that is really an extension of our senses, you should consult it, as you consult your senses. Please go through the page with the list of experiments confirming SR that I posted above. Or if you don't, then please just accept time dilation instead. It's one or the other.

The clues are very strange - time dilation behaves like a real effect in assymetrical situations, but it behaves like an illusion in symmetrical situations.

Now perhaps you'll see what I meant when I said that if you don't understand the question, you won't get the answer. Maybe I've made the question that many of us are struggling to answer clearer, I hope so. Best wishes.

Rob,

Perusing Peter Woit's blog, "multiverse mania" is gaining traction from the apparent demise of string theories and super symmetry, due to not finding any evidence at the LHC. I think the underlaying phenomena is "math mania."

Not to equate math with the various physical extrapolations proposed by those who view it in religious terms, but as a mania, its inherent nature of modeling reality is obscured.

The concept of Junk in, junk out is lost to many who view any result as evidence of some hidden facet of nature, rather than some overlooked factor in the math.

Rob,

You ask, "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?"

Interesting question. Logically flawed, however. I can well say that "I" have no objective value -- like you and all other such muti-celled creatures, I am a corporation of cooperating cells, and so there's always the potential for internal decoherence. All those communicating cells and molecules, individually, have the means to sustain or destroy the organism at any instant, depending on the messages they send to one another. So on that scale, there simply is no "I."

On the scale in which we two beings communicate, the same principle applies -- it is the *information* we exchange that determines the objective value of our world. No matter in which of multiple scales of a complex system, it is always the correspondence between expectation and result that determines objective knowledge -- when there is no correpondence, i.e., when "I" expect results not in evidence, "I" have no objective value.

In science, when we speak of correspondence between abstract theory and physical result, it is that correspondence -- not the theory nor the result of themselves -- that has objective value.

John Wheeler's world made entirely of information is entirely objective.

"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.'"

Well, I thought I told you before that my ICCS 2007 paper and the accompanying PowerPoint deals with the foundations of this subject. Maybe I didn't.

"Regarding 'since you are creating this universe.', I'm flattered that you think me powerful enough to create a universe."

You left out a few words, didn't you? What you actually said, to which I replied, is that " ... all the initial conditions are determined by a finite pseudo-random generator," which is -- demonstrably so -- in your head. In other words, the pseudo-random algorithms your brain-mind generates to comprehend the world work in cooperation, or not, with the pseudo-random algorithms from other brain-minds. The possibly of *genuine* randomness is a product not of those finite state machines; it is to be seen that genuine randomness persists in Nature -- that would make Albrecht's hypothesis true and falsifiable.

"But I assure you I cannot, anymore that anyone else can create a multiverse, by merely wishing it exist."

Consider who is the "I." The "I" can make wishes -- those elements that sustain the "I," however, perform and complete the tasks that require no wishful thinking.

Tom

doug,

The last line was; "...it's degree of being one another." This may be translated many ways, some I disagree with. I suggest an energy phase transition, and when 'matter', it implements space time curvature by interaction with the fluctuations (modulation) including to local c, to axis of re-emission, and giving quantization or re-emissions. The energy density 'depression' left in the other mode around the matter is then what forms the 'topology' we call gravity.

However. My new 'Law of the Reducing Middle' which replaces the excluded middle and is closely analogous to fuzzy logic, shows that nothing has non zero probability amplitude. So anything that can happen will happen (even in some future iteration) Some dark energy may then behave like matter and vice versa. the inverse PADistribution for that is probably a pretty flat curve but a curve none the less.

I let the cat out of the bag some time ago, but at our current orbital speed they can't last for 54.

I find your explanation above even more unreadable than my own initial explanations! I glimpse a hazy picture that looks good then the mists roll in again. I think I see more than most, so it needs re-writing if to be understood by the typical reader.

Lipp's Law seems a bit of a mess. " see equal states of equilibrium to dis-equilibrium." means nothing in English. i.e. What is 'see', what DO they 'see', What are the 'states' Is it a 'ratio'? The 'above is not a 'reason', and it doesn't in itself 'explain gravity.' You no doubt know clearly how it can do so in your mind, but the challenge is in communicating those concepts, step by step, to allow other very different brain networks to assimilate it. Now if I could just do that too....!

Best wishes

Peter

While none of us has "objective" value, we all have subjective value, as does any model we create of reality. This goes to the fact that any perception, even those which are integrated into other perceptions and don't just branch out into wild and disconnected speculation, are inherently subjective. Information, like any energy based form, will interfere with the state of other such forms and cause disruption. Thus the uncertainty principle. Much as colors run together, or leaving a camera shutter open longer will create fuzziness, even though it gathers more information. Math is a function of distilling away excess, in order to perceive underlaying patterns. Sometimes though, too much information is left out and the result is deceptive. True objectivity is ultimately a flat line, as everything cancels out.

Thus, "objectively," all value is nil.