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.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #38

      Thank you very much Philip,

      So, Bits of information have relationships with each other such as entanglement and these relationships have real form.

      With real form you mean "can be described by math Formulas"?

      By "form" I mean some kind of geometric representation

      Philip

      "I think bits of information are real but they do not have any physical form or shape themselves"

      What about light, vibration, noise, etc, then? This is information, because it is representational of something else, but is also physically existent in its own right.

      No information, as in knowledge, is physically existent, unless one expresses it in terms of neural activity, or a chemical known as ink on a substance known as paper, etc. But of course that I not the point. So this cannot do anything physical.

      Paul