Hi Akinbo,

I had a glance over your essay and the basic idea is that one should instead of idealized points consider "extended points" or monads. Is this correct? This idea seems to have some connection with the idea that there will be some smallest size one can probe (e.g. Planck size) and beyond this it is impossible to go to smaller distances. In some sense that there is a smallest unit of space-time. This is an idea which has received some attention. A colleague and friend of mine Piero Nicolini and co-workers have been looking at non-commutative geometry -- the postulate that just as in QM one has non-trivial commutators between x and p

([x, p] =/=0) so too there is some new non-trivial commutator between coordinates x, y, z for example [x, y] =/=0). The implication of this is that one can't simultaneously take x and y to zero (just as one can't simultaneously take x and p to zero in QM) or in other words one can't shrink things to a point. He has a nice review article of these ideas:

"Noncommutative Black Holes, The Final Appeal To Quantum Gravity: A Review"

Piero Nicolini (Trieste U. & INFN, Trieste & Fresno State),

Int.J.Mod.Phys. A24 (2009) 1229-1308; e-Print: arXiv:0807.1939 [hep-th]

In any case this seems to have some connection to the idea of monads.

Best,

Doug

    Dear Akinbo,

    I think this is a triditional philosophical essay. But it's pity,frankly speeking, I am afraid of I have not get your points. Still，it deserves a good rating.

    Good luck,

    Chenxi

      Thanks Doug for your look in. I will check the references you mentioned. I understand Wheeler also used the term in one of his papers. Take a look at the judgement to follow.

      Best regards,

      Akinbo

      Hi Chenxi,

      Thanks for looking in all the same.

      Best regards,

      Akinbo

      THE JUDGEMENT

      In the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors, this honorable court wishes to commend FQXi for providing and maintaining courtroom 1764 for the proceedings.

      In deciding this case, the court is pleased that both counsel founded their arguments on geometry, in keeping with the late Hon. Judge Galileo's admonition that in constitutional conflicts, geometry is supreme, as he said and I quote, "He who attempts natural philosophy without geometry is lost - Galileo Galilei, Dialogo, Opere 7 299 (Edizione nazionale, Florence, 1890-1909)". However, counsel misdirected themselves in not equally heeding the admonition of the late Hon. Judge Wheeler, which *prima facie* must equally apply to geometry, the science of space in that "... even the SPACE-TIME continuum itself - DERIVES its FUNCTION, its MEANING, its very EXISTENCE entirely - FROM ... binary choices, BITS". (capitals for emphasis and can be read separately). Indeed, if they had done so this case would not have been so protracted or even arisen in the first place.

      Taking counsels' addresses, submitted exhibits and other testimonies into account, including at least two from expert PhD witnesses in the persons of Howard Baum and Carolyne Devereux on the question whether "Existence/Non-existence" can be regarded as a 'bit' which was answered in the affirmative, this honorable court now finds as follows:

      1) As there is no dispute between parties that the fundamental objects of geometry would 'have no part', being not further divisible, we uphold both counsel's submission. POINTS are the fundamental units of geometry, BUT so are MONADS.

      Courtroom audience: (murmurs)

      Court sheriff: Silence in court‼

      Both counsel: Your honor, how can we BOTH be correct?

      Judge: (turning to audience) Further murmurings may attract contempt charges...

      (turning to both counsel) Have counsel disregarded the 'reducing middle' of Peter Jackson and the 'interplay in a cosmic dance' of Jonathan Dickau? I continue...

      2) Points are geometric objects of zero dimension. Their attribute of "non-existence" does not make them a geometric fiction as Plato has pointed out during proceedings.

      3) Monads can be regarded as extended 3-dimensional geometric objects of Planck dimension conferring extension to that entity which we call space, even as there can logically be no spatial interval between them. All that has extension must exist. Therefore monads have the attribute of "existence", which they exhibit discretely.

      4) As noted by the late Judge Wheeler, citing various authorities, information in terms of expressed binary choices underlies reality. The court holds that reality cannot be hindered from expressing its constitutional right to this binary choice, which it may freely express in the manner of existence/non-existence, and which from paragraphs 2 and 3 above is to say monad/point, representable by the binary digits, 1 and 0 respectively. The experts' opinion therefore indicate that a point can be a 'bit' after all, notwithstanding its non-existence and contrary to Plato's earlier answer during cross-examination.

      5) The expression of the binary choices in paragraph 4 is the fundamental event in this universe. All other events are secondary patterns to this, no matter how seemingly complexly contrived and expressed.

      6) The fundamental 'it', the basis of substance is a discrete expression of binary choice 1. All other extension/structure in the form of lines, surfaces and bodies are composite, no matter how seemingly complexly contrived and beautifully expressed like Antony Ryan's Fibonacci series, and no matter whatever other attributes like mass, charge they claim to have acquired. All these acquired attributes can be decomposed into the fundamental structure/event.

      7) As regards, the issue of motion, the court finds that this is a phenomenon whereby in the line of motion of a body, monads discretely convert sequentially to points, while in the opposite direction points convert serially to monads, both events occurring simultaneously and equally in obedience to an action-reaction principle. This makes motion describable in incremental steps as has been advocated by Leibniz and Newton in their development of Calculus (testimony from Jeff Baugher noted with thanks). *dx* in calculus is therefore a discrete manifestation of binary choice and is equal to the Planck length, not more and not less. On the other hand, *dt*, i.e. duration for a monad to annihilate to a point or for a point to transform to a monad, cannot be smaller than the Planck time but can have larger values, possibly including being a real number. This allows for variable speeds. Indeed, if counsel had cultivated a reconciliatory attitude, they could not have found otherwise.

      When a body flush at an origin A moves to a destination B, assuming without conceding, that the fundamental objects of geometry can only be of zero dimension, from whence does the increasing extension between the moving body and the origin emerge? A question for the relational view with points having zero dimension.

      Similarly, assuming without conceding that the fundamental objects of geometry can only be extended objects, whither those objects as the extension reduces between the moving body and its destination? Have they not collapsed to points of zero dimension? A question for finite geometry and substantivalism.

      Motion is therefore digital, without the necessity to resort to mathematical but unphysical tools like those of Cauchy and Cantor in order to bypass Zeno's paradoxes of motion. A bypass that ends up giving us the headache of distance to destination *tending* to zero, fractioning of distances beyond the Planck limit and no discernible first or last step taken during motion.

      So when next you drive your car, take a walk, see a bird fly, a fish swim or even nod your head to some music, consider that that which you are witnessing is the conversion of extension to points and points to extension.

      8) On the possibility of superposition of states. While this may apply to composite things, we find no evidence before us that this will be available to things having no parts, as subtly hinted also by Leibniz in paragraphs 7 of his Monadology, and I quote, "It doesn't make sense to suppose that a monad might be altered or re-arranged internally by any other created thing. Within a monad there's nothing to re-arrange, and there is no conceivable internal motion in it that could be started, steered, sped up, or slowed down, as can happen in a composite thing that has parts that can change in relation to one another". Indeed, evidence of superposition of states by any 'it' can be taken as evidence that that 'it' is composite. Ian Durham's testimony although a possibility is therefore not applicable to the instant case, while that of Georgina Parry is upheld.

      9) As regards rumors that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since its whisperings that it is a participant and not a nothing are ignored, but rather by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars according to Mach's principle, or in its alternative by the cosmic background radiation or a local inertial frame as suggested by Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano and Philip Gibbs respectively, in which reference frame the *constantly related* bodies' circular motion can then be realized, all in a bid to deny space its geometric constitutional rights to participate in motion, are respectfully noted but are unconvincing to this court in the light of evidence that points and monads are now to be seen as binary states.

      10) As to counsel's plea to rename Point road, Extended Point Highway, the court declines to do this. That there is no victor and no vanquished in this suit is obvious, *res ipsa loquitur*. Rather, for his remarkable insight we name the bridge linking the two roads, "Wheeler's Bridge", for providing an opportunity for that much needed handshake across the theoretical physics divide.

      11) We thank some of the friends of the court, *amicus curiae*, not earlier mentioned, Alan Kadin, Marcus Arvan, John Merryman, Michael Helland, Joe Fisher, Eckard Blumschein, Basudeba Mishra, Edwin Eugene Klingman, George Gantz, Roger Granet, Anton Biermans, Hoang cao Hai, Antony Ryan, Hon Jia Koh, Henry Lindner, Patrick Tonin, Helmut Hansen, Vladimir Tamari, James Hoover, Zoran Mijatovic, John Selye, Domenico Oricchi, Andrej Rehak, Vladimir Rogozhin, Armin Shirazi , Sreenath, George Kirakosyan, Hugh Matlock, Vijay Gupta, Stephen Anastasi, Thomas Howard Ray, John Maguire, Yuri Danoyan, Adel Sadeq, Steven Sax, Brian Ji, Jayakar Joseph, Israel Perez, Michel Planat, Than Tin, Don Limuti, Chenxi Guo, Douglas Alexander Singleton to mention a few.

      12) In the matter of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors, this is the considered judgement of this honorable court. Details of this judgement may be posted later on viXra.org or arXiv.org.

      THANK YOU.

      *This is a Classical judgement. For future Quantum versions see people like Armin Shirazi, Don Limuti and Gordon Watson.

        Dear Sir,

        This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

        Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

        Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

        Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

        Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

        The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

        However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

        Regards,

        mbasudeba@gmail.com

        Dear Akinbo,

        I am SO sorry that I didn't read your essay until just now, but I am nevertheless glad that I eventually did. Wow. I think both your writing style and approach are brilliant. And, as an attorney, I loved the manner in which you handled your concluding remarks (and wondering why I didn't think of doing it that way).

        I think you are absolutely correct - that 'it derives from bit' and 'bit derives from it.' The universe contains both 'hardware' and 'software.' Hardware without software is just a fancy pile of parts; software without hardware is just a fancy pile of instructions. Not only does each require the other in order to 'function' - each is needed to help create the other as well.

        Although I missed the 'jury vote' prior to the judgment that was rendered, I am glad I didn't miss the deadline on rating your well-reasoned essay, which I think deserves very high marks.

        Perhaps, if you are so inclined, we can continue to correspond in the future.

        Best to you,

        Ralph

          Dear Akinbo,

          I read you interesting essay and I gave it a very high rating of 9.

          Hope you will read my essay and give it a rating.

          Regards,

          Ken

          Dear Akindo,

          Fascinating essay that covers the history of zero point and Monad.

          KQID does use as you explained below as Wheeler's "geometrodynamics" in the firm of in stein complex coordinates( Pythagoras numbers and Fu Xi's trigrams) that are computed and projected by the Monad bit into ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) relative holographic Multiverse.

          "b). Use as 'bits'. Wheeler was in the forefront of a grand scheme to reduce physics to geometry. This he called 'geometrodynamics'.It was his dream to obtain mass from the massless, charge from the chargeless and field from the fieldless. To him, "what else is there out of which to build a particle except geometry itself?". If we follow Wheeler along this road, we infer that 'it' is from 'geometry'. A literal interpretation of the same Wheeler's 'it from bit' is then that 'geometry' and 'bit' must be strongly related, if not same."

          KQID agrees that bit = it, thus, both it from bit and bit from it as the same thing. You wrote below:

          "Plato: Your honor, all is geometry. From the dialectic of counsel for Atomistic Enterprises Inc., monads are 'it' and their change between two alternate states is the 'bit'. Thus, 'it' is from 'bit' and 'bit' is also from 'it'."

          Excellent!

          Best wishes,

          Leo KoGuan

            Dear Ralph,

            Thanks for your comments. I will reply on your blog. Perhaps, you may find grounds for appealing the judgement :)?

            All the best,

            Akinbo

            Dear Akinbo,

            Good to see you continuing in your wonderful way with words and logic.

            I look forward to further developments (especially to join in the viXra.org dialogues and submissions).

            With best regards; Gordon.

            Dear Akimbo,

            You still did not react to my (possibly) imperfect understanding of your monads.

            Let me know your view.

            Then you will suffer my very good rate of your essay.

            Kind regards,

            Michel

            Dear Akinbo,

            thanks for your words. Yes my intention is to uncover the geometric origin of matter. In particular, I try to obtain it from simple assumptions like the use of exotic smoothness structures.

            Unfortunately, I had only time to skim over your essay. There are parallels to my view and I'm glad that you notice it. I have to read it more carefully because it is more philosphically.

            Best wishes

            Torsten

              Thank you.

              Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, perhaps you may wish to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT on this blog.

              Akinbo,

              I found your your approach to the topic at hand fascinating and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

              I look forward to hearing from you.

              Regards,

              Manuel

                • [deleted]

                • Post #125

                Akinbo,

                As I pointed out in my response on my thread, you raise far more issues than can be easily answered.

                The ancient Romans are castigated for not having a zero in their number system, yet they were a notoriously practical minded people and given that zero creates more problems that it easily solves, they may have left it out on purpose, like that relative one deals with as little as possible.

                Yes, a dimensionless point is a mathematical contradiction, because lacking any of the three dimensions means it is a multiple of zero. A dimensionless point would be as real as a dimensionless apple.

                A monad is not a perfect solution either. In order to have an irreducible dimensionality, like a Planck unit, one must be able to theoretically assign it some size. Two problems with this; For one thing, you could always "theoretically" cut that size in half. Saying otherwise is just an appeal to authority. For another, in order to have size, it must have boundaries, which requires structure and definition smaller than the proposed unit. If you make the walls of its container dimensionless, you only push the problem away, you don't solve it.

                As for something and nothing, they are not the computational 1 and 0. In order to measure anything, even nothing, you need something to measure/detect whether it does, or doesn't exist. So actually it is 1 and 2. The detector silent and the detector ringing.

                As for Zeno, it doesn't matter how many times you add a zero, you still have zero, so there is no such thing as a line of dimensionless points.

                The real zero is empty space. It is not a singularity or bound in any way, because it is nothing. Being nothing, it cannot move, therefore it is inert. It is against this inertia of empty space that the speed of light is limited. Thus the faster an object goes, the greater the drag on its internal activity and so the slower its clock runs. Eventually at the speed of light in this vacuum, there is no internal activity and so no more energy that can be converted into increased speed, so the speed of light in the vacuum is an absolute limit. If space were truly relative, then nothing would prevent separate frames, with normal internal activity , moving past one another at the speed of light. There could be living beings in that beam of light flowing through your window, if space were not the ultimate frame.

                Centrifugal force is another example of the inertia of space. If motion is entirely relative, then why would an object in an otherwise empty frame ever have measurable spin? And if it didn't, why would an object with only the most distant light as outside reference have any centrifugal effect if it is spinning? It is only because space is zero, the absolute, universal state, that such things are real effects and limits.

                Now you might argue centrifugal force is not affectted by the frame moving, much as spinning a child on the suface of the earth is not affect when the child is moving in the direction of rotation, versus the other direction, but that is only because it is so incremental. At near the speed of light, the spin of an electron is decidedly affected, thus creating length contraction. Also General Relativity do describe gravity as warped spacetime and if you were to spin that child in a circle up and down, it would seriously matter whether it is the upward motion, or the downward motion.

                I think gravity is a basic vacuum effect of radiation contracting into mass. Much as releasing radiation from mass creates significant pressure.

                So since physics treats everything as measurement and space is described as a measure between mass points, so that when they are drawn together, it is considered a contraction of space, gravity is another form of length contraction of the collapsing energy and the mass that is its concentrated form. No need of gravitons or gravity waves when all we need is for light in space to be more diffuse then light absorbed into mass.

                Time, on the other hand, is an entirely different situation. My last year's contest entry dealt with the problems of our understanding of time.

                After this, then comes the issue of what is epistemic and what is ontological. Consider that past and future are not ontologically real, so even the notion of determinism is epistemic.

                Regards,

                John Merryman

                Ps, You do have a very intelligent perspective on the deeper issues, so I will grade you appropriately.

                  Hi Akinbo,

                  Can you give a conceptual meaning of the use on infinity in renormalization? The link between infinity and energy is not clear to me. Also, you say "A line having the width and thickness of Planck dimension, cannot divide space infinitely." Where infinite division is at hand, can getting as close to possible to the infinite dividing reaches be useful mathematically? I would think that here since the monad has a role in the real world, this nearing of the infinite would also have some physical significance.

                  It is really nice to see geometry and philosophy-like ideas discussed in a science pap. I think this is what the time needs right now. The complexities of theory today keep many genius minds at bay. I did not know Wheeler's geometrical nature in his work, and this motivates me to learn more about him. I know nothing of his. What's the other side of the plank scale from the view of the Extended Point Highway? You know, the one that isn't well known to us. Many physicists are looking form smaller discrete parts 'lower' than Planck distance, but I think the general behavior around that scale is more important than the particulars at the moment. I am unsure what the view based on nomads would have to say, if anything at all.

                  This essay followed the discussion points of the contest very closely, and was made interesting with the invocation of the Muses...

                  Sincerely,

                  Amos.

                  Dear Akinbo,

                  Good to be home! I like your classic approach.

                  You ask: "in a very fundamental discussion, what information will be "occupying the ontological basement""?

                  I say it is in any system of events the OBSERVER proper as signifying the "virtual exchange" of standard model or "space-time" of general relativity. Thus to realize Wheeler's participatory universe we must assume that the universal computer or algorithm proper is ANY DE FACTO OBSERVER as the "configuration space" of all matter/bits and what is better known in QM as the matter wave (wave function).

                  My "observer" is in other words the thing we call individually "mind" or biologically "life" and physically "energy" (or generally a "conservation law").

                  Thank you for your engaging essay.

                  Regards,

                  Chidi

                    Dear Akinbo,

                    I hope the comment I wrote here, and lost during changing the server, will be restored. If not, I will try to make another one.

                    Best regards,

                    Cristi Stoica