Dear Vladimir,
I very much enjoyed reading your wonderful, clarifying and funny essay! You definitely make the cloud of unnowing become more transparent. But I cannot agree about the universe being a quantum computer - not even a kind of. As little as it is a kind of hammer. This opinion is a "Baconian Idol" of mine. Perhaps, as such, it adds dust to my personal cloud of unknowing. But I take the risk.
Best regards!
Inger Stjernqvist
Dear Inger
Thank you for your nice note. Did I say the Universe is a kind of computer ? Hmm maybe I sort of did - but all these are words...because of the Cloud I really do not know - but I do have a "Beautiful Universe" model (it is referenced in section 4 that needs simulation and testing, whatever one calls it. Angels can fly through clouds - are you going to write an essay this year's contest?
Finally What is Baconian Idol? Does it have bad cholesterol?
Best wishes to you!
Vladimir
Vladimir,
Your gracious comments are much appreciated. The main point I wished to make about light was that it must be the absolute of speed only because light is actually the only stationary substance in the Universe. You will note that I did not list an absolute of inertia.
Dear Vladimir!
Sorry - careless me - for mixing up sort of with kind of. For my "Baconian Idol" (perhaps it has bad cholesterol) see Francis Bacon's Novum Organum Scientium (1640) about how our prejudices (Bacon calls them Idols) stand in the way for our capacity to know; adding to our cloud of unknowing.
Thank you for asking, but no, I'm not going to write any contest essay this year. I'm still busy reading and re-reading essays and conversations from last year, trying to put together a meta-essay about what I learn from it.
My very best wishes to you in this contest!
Inger
Vladimir: how is your essay's basic point, the "cloud of unknowing", any different from Immanuel Kant's famous distinction in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) between the phenomenal (things as they appear to us) and the noumenal (things in themselves)? As far as I can tell, you're just giving the same argument: that, due to the nature of measurement, we can only know things as they appear to us never how they are in themselves. Am I missing something? If so, what?
Dear Jacek
Just a quick reply to thank you for your kind comments. I notice you have an essay I would like to read it and then comment. Best of luck in the contest! Very briefly in answer to the common metric between GR and QM it might be something like the lattice of nodes in my Beautiful Universe Theory referenced in Section 4 of my paper. Who knows?!
Good luck to you in the contest.
Vladimir
Dear Inger
No need to apologize for 'sort of' and 'kind of' I doubt there is a difference in these expressions! Thanks for the clarification about Francis Bacon. (I always confused the two Bacons, but felt it is not correct to say that Roger Bacon invented the scientific method - it was Al-Hassan Ibn Al-Haytham whose work Bacon knew, it seems, according to Wikipedia).
In my essay I ventured into an area outside my usual interests, but I am glad my thoughts ended up making some sense, even replicating the concept of Francis Bacon's Idols.
There were so many esays last year - I will read yours.
Best wishes to you!
Vladimir
Marcus
I was only marginally interested in philosophy, and as I mentioned in my essay did not think it was relevant to physics (until my recent realization.) Once I half-heartedly audited a philosophy course with Charles Malik in which I made the joke that Zeno, who was a wrestler, "struggled with his thoughts".
So yes my 'Cloud' may very well be the same as Kant's concept. I also just learned from Inger's comment above that it is the same as Francis Bacon's Idols - an idea that preceded Kant's. As you see I go around within my own Cloud of Unknowing, but these discussions help dissipate it here and there - thanks.
1. Why the bad rep. on S.R.? The theory tries to conserve the laws of nature from one frame to another, not make them subjective. This is the root of that limited theory of constant uniform motion. The Principle of Relativity is not doubted by anyone reasonable. Everything feels like it has a price to it. It's a price I'll pay, even with death.
2. What's so bad about being not absolute? It could be that reality really is not absolute, without this being from derived error (i.e. a triangle not observed doesn't necessarily have 3 straight lines with angles adding up to 180 degrees).
3. About nature dealing only with itself, just because something is self contained, I don't see that as being a reason for saying that's the whole story. That which is unseen is still real.
4. The platform you're building your computer on seems right, about the circular momentum, but the rigidity seems to dodge the real question with strictness.
Dear W. Amos Carine
1- My conclusion is that SR is a brilliant way to describe relativistic effects (Lorentz transformations etc) using one formulation based on a pre-supposed constant c. Many reasonable people such as Lorentz felt SR was unnecessary - it is clock motion not time as a dimension which slows down, and it is meter length not space itself that contracts. SR causes severe unnecessary complications in GR where even Einstein admitted that c slows down in a gravitational field. Finally SR banishes the ether which is now found to be necessary in quantum gravity theories. No need for martyrdom for physics though, whatever we believe is true!
2- Its not a question of good or bad, but which theory, at the end of the day, provides the simplest and most consistent and combines well with others. In order to unify physics SR has to be ditched for a simpler relativity (using doppler effects) derived in an absolute space and no time.
3- We are just bandying words here one needs to define 'real' - I was trying to make a distinction between what we think and what is out there in Nature, but may have expressed it badly.
4- My model is not strictly that of nature-as-computer because there is no 'software' to run it - it runs itself. Glad we agree on the fundamental nature of angular momentum. In fact the lattice is *not* rigid but expands due to dark energy see the details in Beautiful Universe Theory
Best wishes.
Vladimir/Marcus
The point here is, irrespective of whether Vladimir is saying that, this distinction is spurious.
We only know of existence as it appears to us. That is, for us, physical existence. We cannot know of it in any other form. Whether there is another form or not. We are trapped in an existentially closed system. And science must concentrate on that, which is manifest to us by a simple physical process, ie the receipt of physical input. So does the brick wall next to you, but that has not been enabled by evolution, to be aware of it, ie subsequently process that. The physical circumstance is the same.
This distinction arises from a confusion as to what constitutes physical existence. It is what is potentially knowable to us. There may be alternatives, because, if A there is always the logical possibility of not-A. But we cannot know what we cannot know. Science is about the knowable, religion, and in many cases philosophy, involve belief.
Paul
Vladimir F. Tamari,
"Information is an artifact of human thought imposed on Nature to describe some of its aspects."
After reading your essay, I think that you say more than this sentence reflects. However, each time I read it, I question why you said it in your introduction. It reads like a conclusion. Yet, it suggests to me that you are not speaking about nature's information but, rather, about interpretation.
"Information about Reality, including BITs, is an artificial concept obtained by sentient observers who sample Reality (IT) using various very limited aspects of it through the senses or scientific instruments. This imperfect input is processed through various neurological, logical and mathematical means to form a concept, idea or image of the original. Fundamental Reality is diluted, distorted or lost. The process is exemplified by an optical imaging situation where the object (Reality) emits or reflects light (Information) to create an Image. In the case of an ideal lens the image is almost identical to the object, but most other situations involve imperfect instruments and fallible human perception and understanding. The image is often imperfect, and its interpretation heavily biased by the cultural, philosophical or even religious beliefs and preconceptions of the time."
Could you please give your opinion of this statement of mine: I think that this may be viewed in a different manner giving the opposite conclusion. The information we receive arrives in a storm of wildly mixed photons from innumerable sources and directions. The lenses and other interrupting devices do not, I think, pass on images. They pass on an alterred arrangement of that mix of photons. It is the processing that our minds do to it that draws a possible image out of the mix and forms it into a picture. I see that picture as being most usually an improvement of the information that was received. Our minds choose what to make of the information and proceed to make it.
You mentioned intuition in another part of your essay. What is 'intuition' in your view?
"Nature and information can then be regarded as one and the same thing. The state of the nodes on the surface of a volume of such nodes is the result of interference-like effects of all the nodes within, affirming the Holographic Principle. Another way of putting it is that the Universe is a sort of quantum computer. In this paradigm the Question can be readily answered: In the Universe it is neither IT from BIT nor BIT from IT, but rather IT=QUBIT."
The first part "Nature and information can then be regarded as one and the same thing. ..." seems to me to be questionable. Particles generate information and that information is delivered to us. The particles are not the information. I think you mean something other than what I read into your words. I know your paragraph is explaining your view, but, I don't see how it fits with nature. Nature no doubt computes but it cannot be a computer. Nature has the property of 'understanding'.
I have expressed opinions of mine, but, it is your opinion I am interested in reading. Whatever you think about what I have said would be appreciated to learn.
James Putnam
Thank you Sir Vladimir for the replies to my confused probing. After reading your paper that you linked in your reply, I think it's now evident at least that my statement on momentum meant more to you (mathematically and with working familiarity) than I knew at the time. That is the great risk in talking to a mind, one never knows exactly how much lies in there unknown or unexpressed.
With a little fuzz still left after the read.
You are welcome Sir W. Amos
Thank you for reading my rather rambling papers. Do not blame yourself for feeling a little fuzzy. My Theory is very much a mostly qualitative work in progress. I have faith in the effectiveness of the node gyrations to explain gravity, e=mc^s etc. it needs to be presented systematically and the appropriate math developed. There are vast tracts of modern physics I do not understand at all, or understand only through writing addressed to the layperson so its OK to feel fuzzy. Yes there is risk in communications online - at least these days one can reasonably assume there is a human being at the other end. In a few years one will need to be careful it is not a computer providing the feedback!
Dear James
Thanks for your careful reading of my paper. Frankly the subjects I chose to tackle in it are new to me and outside my usual areas of interest or expertise, but I found them interesting enough to try to complete the paper as I did. So it may be inconsistent or badly phrased in places. However I was later told that the Cloud in my essay is no different from Kant's concept of the difference between phenomenon and noumenon!
You said "It is the processing that our minds do to it that draws a possible image out of the mix and forms it into a picture. I see that picture as being most usually an improvement of the information that was received. Our minds choose what to make of the information and proceed to make it. You mentioned intuition in another part of your essay. What is 'intuition' in your view?"
Very true and I think you answered yourself in the last sentence - it is our innate sense of intuition - some ability to reach logical conclusions about the world ? that sorts through the messy information and makes sense of it in ideas and theories. Is intuition due to inheritance or to upbringing and experience...?
""Nature and information can then be regarded as one and the same thing. ..." seems to me to be questionable. "
Right..I think I was describing the gadgets such as the soroban, the slide rule, and in a similar vein, my Beautiful Universe erector-set-like model of the Universe. What *actually* happens in Nature is something else and subject to the hazy influence of the Cloud.
I wish I had the stamina to go into this more deeply - I will see if you have an essay and if so will read it.
With best wishes
Vladimir
I have just downloaded your Beautiful Universe Theory. I seems to be interesting...
Jacek
And I have read your paper on vixra "Spacetime Deformations Theory". I see we share some (but not all) ideas about how to re-start physics from new concepts. Good! Your concept of regarding matter as waves was the leitmotif of the late Gabriel La Frenier - his website is archived here: Matter Is Made of Waves . Please tell people about this great thinker's website because he had some important insights. I agree with you that a physical field density is a key element in gravity. Good luck.
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
I have just read your 'BEAUTIFUL UNIVERSE: TOWARDS RECONSTRUCTING PHYSICS FROM NEW FIRST PRINCIPLES'. It is not a work for one night. I have left some ad hoc comments at my essays' forum where you have recommended BU theory.
I see that you recommend very interesting content so I have to look immediately at Gabriel La Frenier website. Thanks!
Vladimir,
I love your 'cloud of unknowing'. Great essay, particularly as it extend what I'd assume is your main comfort zone. I particularly liked; "Experimental and theoretical knowledge and information about Nature should not be confused with Nature itself." Very similar to my own point about maths and statistics.
I also picked out;
"in arrogance and short-sightedness we have fallen into the trap of confusing our derived knowledge of Reality with Reality itself
"...misconceptions can easily arise even from correct data"
"...a Cloud of Unknowing obscures both the process of experimental observation of Reality and in thinking and creating theories about it."
"...Taking a hint from Shannon's Information theory it is useful to think of the Information about the subject as passing from Nature to the observer through an information channel. There is always the possibility of noise distorting the information as it is transferred from its original manifestation to a sensor, retina, (including the paraphernalia of data processing in a brain) or computer."
Excellent stuff. (and all consistent with my proposed new law I think?)
Peter
Thanks Peter for your generous response to my essay. Indeed it was off my usual well- trodden path but It finally dawned on me how important it was to examine not just what we know but how we know it. I kick myself for not including the input of the five senses in the illustration!
Good luck with your new law.
Check out the Itsy Bitsy song on YouTube thats of my generation!
All the best
Vladimir
