Philip,

I read your essay with interest, even though I was not familiar with the term "acataleptic". The online dictionary I used defined this as "incomprehensible", although I now understand that you are referring to fundamental uncertainty. And indeed, quantum uncertainty is universally believed to be a fundamental aspect of nature. On the other hand, I argue in my essay ("Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time") that one can obtain a consistent description of microscopic reality based on real-space relativistic quantum waves, without uncertainty - there are no point particles.

Further, I show that one can obtain the effects of general relativity directly from these microscopic quantum waves. But a self-consistent application of this picture eliminates divergences, so there are neither event horizons nor black holes. Yes, this is heretical, but I argue that the observation of compact high-mass objects does not prove the existence of black holes per se.

Finally, thank you for your creation of viXra.org, which enables one to evade the tyranny of anonymous gatekeepers.

Alan

    I agree that awareness/consciousness is not a physical process. It could be viewed as just a psychological process of no importance to physics, but I think it is a little more than that because it is linked to entropy and information. It is an important aspect of understanding the interpretation of physics. It may tell us something about why we see the universe the way we do. If the laws of physics are holographic why do we not experience life as if we are living on a 2D boundary rather than the extended 3D world that you get by adding in lots of redundancy?

    It may also become a practical consideration in the future if it becomes possible to accurately simulate our brains on a computer. A simulated brain would claim to have awareness because it is simulating a real brain and that is what a real brain would claim. Should we accept that? Would you transfer your brain patterns to a computer as a form of immortality? If yes, then what happens if the function of the simulated brain is modified or duplicated etc.? What if someone simulates out brain without telling us? What if we are simulated in another universe? Doesn't that happen somewhere because the universe/multiverse is so large?

    I think that making sense of such questions must tell us something about how the world works, but I don't think the answers require any kind of physical process like a soul to explain consciousness. Do you agree?

    Thanks for the explanation, Philip; I also had a brief look at Lyre's article on multiple quantization. I think the concept is a little different from the intro-to-QM 'promote observables to Hermitian operators' quantization, but then, the intent is different, as well: one doesn't really want to start with a classical system to find the quantum analogue, but build up physics from the ground from 'abstract quantum theory' (a point of view I'm very sympathetic to). I guess we both appreciate Weizsäcker's work from different angles: I was initially drawn to it as an explanation for the three dimensionality of space (which I see reflected in Finkelstein's space-time code and Penrose's original spin networks; indeed, the whole concept has recently be revived in a modern setting by Müller and Masanes, who considered the abstract case of two agents attempting to establish a common reference frame by exchanging quantum information, but this only parenthetically), you emphasize the multiple quantization.

    The straightforwardly ur-theoretic perspective might be somewhat difficult to align with your work anyway, since at least naively, it would seem to suggest a closed (S^3) universe, which would conflict with your views on holography (but I was never entirely convinced by these cosmological arguments anyway). This is actually one thing I've been wanting to investigate for some time: the relationship between ur theory and the holographic principle. I seem to recall some partial successes by either Görnitz or Lyre, who computed the amount of information lost to the universe by removing a particle from it, and found it to be consistent with holographic expectations (maybe it was in Görnitz' 'Abstract Quantum Theory and Space-Time'-series?). But I also seem to recall some tension...

    Anyway, I'll have to check out some of the work you reference---I hadn't previously heard about 'necklace Lie algebras' (though the way you describe and use them reminds me faintly of the concept of 'string bits' that was floating around some years ago, but that might be a false association), and while I had previously dipped into your work on event symmetry (you might have noticed that I reference Greg Egan's 'Permutation City' in my essay), I can't really claim to have the necessary background to understand it all. Sometimes, there's just too much interesting stuff to read...

    Other online dictionaries give better definitions for acataleptic. Some commentaries on the philosophy emphasize that not only are answers uncertain, but even levels of uncertainty are uncertain. This makes me think of the multiple quantisation idea and also Wheeler's comment that the probability values in quantum theory are also human inventions. It sums up some of what my essay is about and makes a cool title.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #23

    Hi Philip,

    After our very brief exchange (some time ago) somehow that led me to reread your last year's essay. I was glad I did, even more with your new essay; I finally think I understand (in general) what you are trying to say. You are definitely on the right track in my opinion . All that, are in line with my own ideas which I hope I can submit, time permitting. But let me ask you the following (for now):

    1. How does the necklace Lie algebra relate to information theory

    2. What does this mathematical structure represent (why this math and not others), since you say it is the origin of matter and space. Do you believe in MUH?

    3. Does this theory have anything to do with your last year essay?

    4. Will your theory clearly derive QFT or gravity or calculate the SM constants or CC to name a few.

    5. Speaking of consistency. Are you really content with the three main forces of SM. The carrier of EM force is "virtual photons" then the weak force you get REAL particles W/Z then the strong is carried by "virtual quarks/gluons" where they all unite at GUT ! Can your theory figure out this mess?

    So far you have done a good job engaging, not like last year, where all the top prize winners were silent, a deafening silence.

    Philip

    "but I think it is a little more than that because it is linked to entropy and information"

    The sensory/thinking process is not physically linked to anything. It cannot have any form of physical impact on the physical circumstance. [Obviously one could depict the process as a physical one, in itself, ie the brain, eye, etc, is physically existent!, but this is not the point]

    It is, obviously, important that the processes are fully understood, because it is the start point for an analysis of the physical circumstance. Or put another way, if we could get rid of it, that would really help! So we need to understand how this process converts physical input to a perception so that we can reverse engineer the process and discern what was received.

    We would not want to simulate the process. The aim would be to eliminate it with technology which established accurately and comprehensively what it received.

    The point here is, leaving aside detail which does not impact on the argument. The brick wall behind you received the 'same' light, indeed so did your mouth, etc, ec, as your eye which caused you to be aware of a bus in front of you. But the brick wall, mouth, etc, cannot process the physical input received by that interaction, the eye can. The physical circumstance was not affected.

    Paul

    qsa, thanks for reading the essay. I look forward to seeing your essay. Let's take your points one by one

    "1.How does the necklace Lie algebra relate to information theory"

    The Lie algebras are pure symmetry. They are not embedded in any space or time and are not particles, The symmetry represents redundant information and the invariants are real information. space, time and matter should emerge from these structures and this is demonstrated by the mapping using interated integration which shows they have an equivalence to string states. Alternativeley these could be particle trajectories if you dont like strings, but I prefer strings. Some of the necklace Lie algebras I have defined in the past take the form of strings of qubits making the information element more explicit.

    "2.What does this mathematical structure represent (why this math and not others), since you say it is the origin of matter and space. Do you believe in MUH?"

    The structures are just infinite dimensional Lie algebras. While finite dimensional algebras can be classified as Lie groups the infinite dimensional versions are largely unexplored territory and have a rich and complex range of possibilities. I can build higher dimensional structures by a iterative process that I identify with quantisation, but I have not described that in detail here. In a more advanced version I expect these to be q-deformed (another part of quantisation) and it may require higher dimensional algebras like n-categories to get the full workings, I am not sure.

    I do go along with the MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypothesis) as postulated by Tegmark and have been writing about similar ideas myself for at least 20 years under the title "Theory of Theories". One element that I add myself is that the mathematics that describe our universe could emerge from the MUH through some principle of universality that applies to the grand ensemble of mathematical possibilities. It could be an algebraic principle of universality rather than a purely statistical process (whatever that means) I don't think anyone else has taken up that idea. The details are of course far beyond what we currently understand.

    to be continued...

      By the way, I prefer not to use the word "believe" which makes it sound like a quasi-religious idea. I would say that in my opinion this could be a useful way to understand how things work.

      "3.Does this theory have anything to do with your last year essay?"

      It is related to work in my previous three FQXi essays. I have added a more detailed argument in favour of "complete symmetry" from the holographic principle by relating it to the converse of Noether's second theorem, and I have introduced the iterated integration mapping which is a recent development. these are relevant to the "It from Bit" topic.

      "4.Will your theory clearly derive QFT or gravity or calculate the SM constants or CC to name a few."

      I hope it will derive QFT and gravity. I am not confident that it will calculate SM constants or dark energy. This is a theory about quantum gravity which is relevant to the Planck scale. the standard model is a theory of the TeV scale and below which is many orders of magnitude lower in energy. The theory at the Planck scale should include all of physics in principle but I think that expecting to derive SM physics from QG is like expecting to derive chemistry or even biology from SM physics but even harder. There is probably a lot of physics in between to account for dark matter, inflation and other stuff we have not yet seen.

      "5.Speaking of consistency. Are you really content with the three main forces of SM. The carrier of EM force is "virtual photons" then the weak force you get REAL particles W/Z then the strong is carried by "virtual quarks/gluons" where they all unite at GUT ! Can your theory figure out this mess?"

      The difference between photons and gluons vs W/Z is that the former are massless and the latter have mass due to Higgs. gluons are also confined so not seen on-shell. All of them manifest as virtual particles and all exist as real particles (in the case of gluons in deconfined phase). That much is well understood. There are many questions including "why so many parameters" "why is there fine-tuning" "what happens at higher energy" etc. I have no idea what happens at the GUT scale, we have along way to go to answer that. In principle a unified theory at the GUT or Planck scale may answer these questions, but it may also be too difficult to calculate what goes on in detail (as in chemistry, nuclear physics etc.) or there may be some arbitrary element (as in biology, geophysics etc.) such as a vacuum selection that can only be determined by experiment. My aims are ambitious enough but they are not so ambitious as to answer all these questions.

      "So far you have done a good job engaging, not like last year, where all the top prize winners were silent, a deafening silence. "

      This topic is of more interest to me and there have been good essays already so I am keen to engage where I can. It is always hard to get the professionals involved and we should respect any contribution they make. The change of rules may encourage more of them to join in the commenting, or it may put them off entering, we shall see.

      Thank you for your excellent questions. I hope I have gone some way towards answering them.

      Philip

      You need to have another go at my essay.

      Paul

      Philip

      Ah ha. So you really need to re-visit my essay! I am trying to convince Jochen of the same point (amongst others)

      Paul

      I know, I will get round to reading it again, there is plenty of time.

      Philip

      Meant to say, there was a piece in the Times today (its actually published in Nature Communications) about why we forget some things short-term then they come back. This is the sort of knowledge we need, because obviously the sensory system/brain processing 'interferes' with what we physically receive, ie we cannot presume physical input equals perception output. So leaving aside individualism (another issue-remember input is inly received at individual level, we need to understand, generically, how these processes work, so that from the output we can extrapolate the input. Which is the start point for physics.

      Paul

      The formulation that they used for quantization is probably not too important now. The idea comes from decades ago and is probably a bit dated. I just like the multiple quantisation idea in general. I think Weizsäcker ended up with some large number type arguments that don't really make sense anymore.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #34

      Hi Philip,

      Thank you for the detailed answers. I will study your reply to get a better understanding of your idea and then I will formulate more specific questions.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #35

      Philip

      Look, when I was young, a wind up toy was the new technology. Hardcopy. Not sure if you can read it on their web site without paying, but the reference was from something called Nature Communications.

      Paul

      • [deleted]

      • Post #36

      Dear Philip,

      Do you think that bits could have real form to make it?

      If so, I would propose that those bits have a complex 4 fold convertible torus

      to fill the particle bill. See 2x attachments and:

      3-D particles the deeper bit-reality of it (matter)

      http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0002

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/93308747@N05/sets/72157633110734398/Attachment #1: It_from_4x_macaroni_Bit_rotation.jpgAttachment #2: quarks_it_made_from_bits.jpg

      Leo, Good to see you over here.

      I think bits of information are real but they do not have any physical form or shape themselves. However, they have relationships with each other such as entanglement and these relationships have real form. That is just the way I see it.

      I like you pictures. I will reread your essay.