On The Road Not Taken by Akinbo Ojo

Akinbo,

Thanks for the reply. That Leibniz sounds like he was a pretty smart guy! I'll write more over at your other comment. See you there!

Hi Akinbo,

Though energy is quantified, that does not mean that the Planck constant is a minimum energy, and hence the Planck length the smallest possible length in the universe.

The short reasoning* is that since in blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies, temperatures, so we need more and more decimals to distinguish successive energy levels, the energy gap between subsequence levels can become arbitrarily small: though energy is quantified, there is no minimum limit to the size of the quantum, so the Planck length and Planck time etc. have no special significance.

The Planck constant h is like the number 1 in mathematics, encompassing all values between 0.5 and 1.5, so if we can measure the Planck constant in more decimals, at higher energies, then we can write that number as 1.0, which encompasses all numbers between 0.95 and 1.05.

So if in our equations we set h = 1, then every time we improve the accuracy of the Planck constant, then we increase the magnifying power of our microscope with a factor 10.

Though there is no smallest distance, to what extent spacetime itself is detailed depends on the energy density somewhere: the higher, the more detailed the spacetime area is.

*For the long reasoning, see my 2010 FQXI essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/838

Another point is that if we do live in a self-creating universe where particles and particle properties are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, then two particles only would be identical if they would be at the exact same point in spacetime, if their environments would be identical.

So instead of saying that interactions between particles become weaker because distance 'dilutes' the property of one particle as observed by the other, we can as well say that the properties of particles become qualitatively more different as they are farther apart, as if from the point of view of a nail, say, a magnet turns more and more into a cork as it is more distant.

This means that your monads not only have no minimum size, they can also differ qualitatively, the difference changing gradually, a difference which is observer dependent.

Regards, Anton

Doctor Ojo,

Thank you for furnishing the website link to Plato's rendition of Parmenides. I think the only improvement I may have added to our understanding of what unique is, is my tautological emphasis on once. It is not the fact that a fingerprint is unique once to each person who has lived, it is unique once to each person who will ever come into existence in the future. This will apply even if cloning becomes real. Aliens may exist, but if they do, they cannot have fingerprints or DNA in their cells.

Dear Akinbo

An interesting presentation.

You can add comments to a prosecution lawyer in the following, or not:

It does not come from bits and the bits also did not born from it.

It is itself - it was born from the process activity of nature - because if there is no source of information dissemination, the information will not have to take over, and the bit is always available everywhere,so bit is not something that was born from it, the bit only absorb and transmission the impact from the source dispersal of information.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Dear Akinbo Ojo,

I would like to suggest that you look at Heckman's essay. It occurred to me that identification of his "agents" with your "monads" leads to some interesting perspectives.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Akinbo,

I like the closing statement that all is geometry and Bit and It seem to be just as fundamental. Also they style and format of your essay is nicely put together.

Perhaps my essay isn't too far removed from your own line of thinking to be worth a read?

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Akinbo,

Thanks for commenting on my essay and introducing me to yours and about Leibniz's monads. I am flattered by its resonance and intrigued by the differences and their potential ways of reconciliation.

Take the idea of "lifetime" of monads in your essay which you also probed in the comment. From the perspective of monads, I would not treat lifetime of monads to be defined or derived from time if time has no further derivative. When monad appears from nowhere to somewhere, how does one define on long it has taken it to do so since there is no way to tell how long it has been in nowhere. Unless reference is made to something else which has the quality of time and that something else couldn't be a monad because it will spiral into infinite chaos and confusion if so. But from the perspective of non-monad, the monad will appear to have a lifetime between annihilation and creation and vice-versa. However the non-monad will have no way to identify which monad has been annihilated and created again, because the monad would have to leave traces or parts behind for the non-monad to identify, where no monad will do, since there are no parts to monad. Therefore monad cannot exist within the non-monad 'time-based' system and this is where we differ subtly it seems.

Regards,

Hon Jia

Hello Akinbo,

Thanks for you kind comments over on my page. I've replied. I found your comments to be very helpful and thought provoking in line with the aims of the contest. Pleasure to "meet" you!

Cheers,

Antony

Dear Akinbo,

Your work is really attractive. I am fully agree that thickness and actual sizes of objects must be no ignored in realistic descriptions. In the classical physics this demand is considered. However the matter is different in QM representation. Here you are right fully. On this question open please the reference from my article ,,Rethinking the Formal methodology ...,, and email my from there. I think we can talk seriously!

Sincerely,

George

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1804

Akinbo,

As the subject of Zeno's dichotomy belongs more to your thread than to mine, I post my reply to your post at my thread on yours -be it in a more concise form. OK?

According to relativity theory the length the walker observes his path to have depends on the pace he walks at: the faster he moves, the more contracted the path looks to him, to shrink to zero length if he could walk at the speed of light. So it are the relativistic effects of his motion, however tiny at walking pace, which allow the traveler, despite the mathematic impossibility, to reach his destination. Zeno's concept of space is that of classical mechanics which assumes that it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, that we live in a mathematical space were all points are identical but for their coordinates. In the actual spacetime we live in, the observed pace of clocks and length of yardsticks differs slightly at different distances, so you might say that the different points of his path live in slightly different universes, so the traveler at the end of his walk isn't the exact same person as the one who departed at the other end.

Anton

Akinbo,

Thanks for reading my paper. You are of course correct that the geometric point is a mathematical fiction, as are infinity and other mathematical concepts. Math is an abstract representational system. Math is not physics, although the two have been conflated by our observer-based measurement models (Relativity and QM). The facts clearly demand the hypothesis that space is a substance, so the task of a theoretical physics is to understand that substance and its role in all phenomena. We now know much, much more about the physical world and the evolution of complexity than did the Greeks, Newton, Leibniz or Einstein. Space must have some smallest parts, but I think that they bear little resemblance to Leibniz's monads, which is why I did not use that term. We cannot proceed as did philosophers of old with abstract speculations about the elements of space. We need to instead look at the known phenomena and see what they tell us about space.

I have shown that gravity is most simply explained if Newton's "absolute" space is instead a fluid flowing into matter--its acceleration causing all matter to accelerate with it. We measure its velocity by the slowing of our atomic clocks. See the theory here. This theory solves Newton's action-reaction dilemma-space acts upon matter to resist its acceleration because matter is acting upon space, consuming it as a sink consumes a fluid. You speculate that the spatial elements disappear in front of and are created behind a moving object, that is possible, but because gravity appears to involve the consumption of space by matter and a resulting sink flow, I think it's more likely that when matter moves through space, space flows into and around it. Someday experiments may help differentiate between these two theories. You may be interested in my further speculations about space, its parts and its motions in this essay.

As you are a physician, you may also be interested in my thoughts on the corruption of medicine by pharmaceutical corporations, and the resulting ignorance of natural scientific medicine, including endocrinology. See my practice webpages.

Henry

Hi Akinbo,

I very much liked your essay. I never heard of these Monads before, they are very similar to my UB's (Universal Bits).

I believe that for a coherent world to develop, these monads need to follow a simple rule. I have described this simple rule in my essay. By following that simple rule, a coherent world with time and space emerges.

If you have the time, please take a look at my essay. I would love to have your comments. If you like the ideas in it, you can read the full story here:3D Universe Theory

Cheers,

Patrick

Hi Akinbo,

I left a comment on my website.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1773

Regards

Helmut

Dear Dr. Ojo

Congratulatins for writing a lucid, engaging, enjoyable and thought-provoking essay, and one (unlike many others here) relevant to the It-Bit contest question.

Your learned guided tour along the Monad Road was of special interest to me because in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I have proposed a Universe composed of a single building block - I call it a node, but you may as well call it a physical monad. While I have not speculated on the 'size' of this node it differs from yours because it does not disappear/appear to describe motion as in your figure. Rather, a pattern of node orientations and energy changes, while the nodes themselves do not move or disappear. Please see Figure 26 in the above mentioned paper to illustrate this rather complicated convoluted motion!

Again thank you for an excellent read - I will also read Newton's paper that you referenced that I did not know about.

With very best wishes, Your Honor.

Vladimir

Akinbo,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Akinbo,

I cannot adhere to your "monad" concept but admire your presentation. It fits into the concept of a physical world of BB virtual particles erupting and inflating in vast numbers where time measures their demise -- an example, but I see no consciousness to observe -- as Wheeler would prescribe. I see consciousness as a feeble participant sensually -- noting a small percentage of physical phenomena (visual range narrow in EM spectrum, for example). The think your argument is clever and acknowledge that if I were gifted mathematically, my own images and concepts might veer in your direction. Monad Road fits into the universe as a computer. I see the 1010 input as the years 1010 but did I miss the significance of the happening in that year -- a thousand years ago the road taken.

Jim

Hello Akinbo,

I took your advice and downloaded the PDF at the end of your hyperlink, but after the first few pages I realized there were some fundamental differences between a "monad" and a "pointy bit" (pbit), and given that I would prefer to look directly a Leibniz's work before commenting on it, all I can say is that in item 3 the monad is extension-less, and not something infinitely small in extension. Whether this PDF is an accurate reflection of Leibniz's views is moot, because I simply can not accommodate things without extension in my understanding of reality. As a software engineer I can entertain any number of dimensions, but they are simple data structures, I can't go home and build a tree house in ten dimensions however much kids want a secret cubby hole with a Brane to keep rain from the eleventh dimension out. And with all due respect to Plato, it is my contention that Plato threw his subordinates an extension-less bone, and anyone caught chewing on that bone made themselves immediately subordinate to Plato, for ever and ever amen.

A pointy bit in my essay, i.e. (pbit), has extension in all three dimensions, and a net extension where one end is different to another, in other words its primary property is "direction". How big it is and whether or not it is divisible is moot if the idea can be used to describe the nature of gravity and the means to creating objects which are a stable configuration of those simple building blocks.

If I were you I would call your conception of a monad "Plank's dot" and describe its properties as uniform and immutable; and then add to that whatever else you need to satisfy others. Had you done so from the start your essay would have been half the size.

Now, if you win, and you take my advice and call it a (pdot), I want some credit.

Cheers!

Zoran.