On The Road Not Taken by Akinbo Ojo

Akinbo,

Just a quickie amid wading through other essays.

You suggest, as the doctrine, that dark matter can't be baryonic. Do you have any other reason than it's low/zero em cross section? Did you know that plasma, including H, He etc ions, has a refractive index of one, giving it a zero em cross section? Very few in MS seem to know or case anything about plasma physics so such things get ignored.

Last year I fully argued the solid case for fermion pair production as the basis for dark matter, but leading to a significant baryon fraction.

Best wishes

Peter

Hello Akinbo,

I'd love to read your essay. Very interesting ideas. Yes, understanding - that's "grasp the structure" (Gutner). Today, the task of "grab" the structure of the "point" - Zero Point. It means to grab the desired structure of space...

One day in spring 1996 a conference "Sense of Life" passed at the Moscow State University. Doctor of psychological sciences, blind and deaf from childhood, A.Suvorov was the first to speak. A man in dark glasses accompanied for a hand with the young man came to the pulpit. He began reading the report, touching the text with his fingers. The audience silently listened to the scientist. He has finished the report by words: "Everything that I have achieved in life was done due to my mother, her persistence, her heart. She brought up purposefulness and love to life in me. I am sure, that the following stage in evolution of the Mankind is a creation of Philosphere, Sphere of Conceiving Spirit, Sphere of Love ". After the report the scientist answered the questions. The young man took one palm of Alexander Vasiljevich and transferred the questions to him by pressing the certain site of a palm. The speed of transfer was very high. I should admit, I was amazed with all: the contents of the report, method of a statement, answers to the questions and the way of transfer an idea - through "point". The word was replaced with "an invisible point", set of "points".

To build a firm foundation of knowledge, we need to take a fresh look at the "Ontos", "Topos" and "Logos". Then we need to build the topology of Being: OntoTopoLogia. OntoTopoLogia is the topology of Being, "ontology of invisible". It is a way to overcome cleaving of knowledge through pro-cogitate of point: "that only, directing a rule", "material point", "ideal point", "point with a germ of a vector", "point - center" , "point-stay", "point-coincidence of minimum and maximum", "point of determination", "point singularis", "point - meeting of two worlds".

You and I are going to close the roads to one "point"- the source. Source of knowledge.

Good luck in the contest and best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Akinbo,

You have written a thought provoking essay. I liked the glossary at the beginning, the frequent references to what historical figures thought on this topic and the original presentation.

Let me state upfront that I find the concept of a point particle problematic and have in the past myself entertained the thought that these are really endowed with finite extent. Perhaps because of that there were some issues that I would have liked to see addressed in your essay which I did not find. I think that you will need to provide answers to some of the questions below before more people will take this idea seriously:

1) Take your characterization of force in figs 1 and 2. Since a monad is incompressible and has no parts, the process of changing its associated value from 1 to 0 in one location and then to 0 to 1 in the adjacent location must happen instantaneously. If it is not instantaneous, then either the monad is compressed or part of the monad disappears to allow for a finite interval for the effect of the force to spread across the monad. Let us string some large number of monads adjacent to each other. The force exerted on the first monad instantanteously affects the second, and then the third and so on, until the last monad is reached. But monads have finite extent, so the force propagates infinitely fast across the entire string, yet we do not see forces that propagate infinitely fast in nature. How do you explain this?

2) It seems that the monads can only take either the values 0 or 1. Yet quantum objects are characterized by the superposition principle, which in the simplest case of a qubit means that you can have an object that is characterized both by 0 and 1, and furthermore, you can prepare states where the contribution of each to the superposition can be anything between 0

I forgot that there is a glitch (I noticed from previous contests ) which cuts the message when the text compiler encounters a "less than" sign. Here is the rest of my post:

0 "less than" sqrt(x) "less than" 1 where x is the probability of finding the object in that state if it is measured. How do you get qubits out of your framework?

3) It is very hard for me to visualize an extended object without a boundary. What does that mean? It seems to me that if a monad is three-dimensional it should be associated with a two-dimensional surface. How is it possible that it isn't?

Your writing style is very lucid and if you can find satisfactory answers to these questions it would make your position much stronger.

All the best,

Armin

Dear Dr. Ojo,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments. Being yourself a physician, you might like the biology section of my essay.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Dear Akimbo,

We have started our discussion and not yet finishing that. I have re reading your work and our comments one more (in my forum) and now I am hope we can mutually resumed our opinions and impressions which will be right for us. I hope get your response on this ask (If you think the same!)

Sincerely,

George

Dear Akimbo,

I have ask you to resume our conclusions/opinions and you have offered a new discussion, more perspectiveless than the base one! Thank you for nice joke.

I have one small vs. question to you (the answer soposed in binary system!)

Are your patients always happy with your treatment?

Regards,

George

Dear Dr. Akinbo. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you or your patients. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so.

With best wishes from Vladimir

Hi Akinbo,

You have offered an excellent presentation examining a fundamental question, and I am pleased that you defended the side of the monad! However, I think there may be different ways in which monads can be understood and would like to get your take on this.

One way to understand monads is as cells of a cellular automata, the kind of model for physics that Edward Fredkin has developed in his digital philosophy. In this case physics consists of determining the (local) rules that operate to change the state of the cells. An example of this kind of model is described by essayist Franklin Hu. Over the years Fredkin has been able to address several issues (such as circular propagation) that bedevil naive attempts at this kind of digital physics.

A second kind of monadic model associates them with particles and views particle interactions as a kind of computational network. This type is described by essayist Deepak Vaid.

And a third way to understand monads is as voxels (volumetric pixels). In this case the computational hardware is not observable; we can only see the display screen. Physics in this case can be any finite calculation that offers a discretized output. It need not be a local computation.

My own essay Software Cosmos takes a look at the third kind of computational model from the top down, considering what we can determine about the universe if we assume it is a kind of virtual reality. In fact, I am able to construct (and carry out) an observational test to determine if we currently live in a simulated world.

Hugh

Great Akinbo,

This essay 'On the Road Not Taken' brings to fore some questions which have been kept under the carpet by science as no single answer is viable in all situations. Many of us have pondered over these questions. Some such questions that have baffled us include relativity, wave particle duality, pre-dominance of analogue or digital world etc.

PicoPhysics has no such paradox. Both concepts are embedded in UNARY law. Discrete is embedded in Knergy and Analogous behaviour in Space of Unary law "Space contains Knergy".

I do decipher the term monad. so went along the Wikipedia and see it is based on abstractions that prevailed before and around Newtonian era.

I see you have some original questions to answer similar to mine.

It was great, reading your article and find solace in knowing there are some people besides me, who have un-answered, un-asked questions.

Vijay Gupta

Proponent Unary Law - Space Contains Knergy

Hello Akinbo

Speaking as an author of two books, I found it to be a beautiful piece of writing.

Your argument is fabulous, and I will be rating it as such (8) because it is foundational, and uses philosophical principles very well. In many ways your attributes of monads from i to vii align well to the fundamental interactions between boundary omnets in my model. I went very carefully through your essay, and am going to show my thoughts as I went through. They are not at any time intended to pull your ideas down, but to suggest how the argument needs to be generalized beyond geometry, and that there are several background assumptions that can't really be ignored in a foundational argument. I think that if one sees these in the spirit in which they are offered that your redevelopment will gradually or quickly converge on my own essay's foundations.

There are several aspects within the first seven clauses about attributes of monads that are presumptive. For example, the idea of compressibility is a human-centered concept, and presumes a background space without showing how it comes to be, or indeed what space is (except as an argument subject to infinite regress). I can guess various arguments in response to this, and there is no need to point them out, but each seems to lead to further arguments, so ought to be left. The items after that assume several aspects that presume pre-existing time, with no causal mechanism shown, and would become unnecessary in terms of the GPE causal model of my essay. For example, emergence and annihilation was introduced to make the monadic concept work, but the Harmony Set evolves and brings time with it, and change in higher dimensional interpretations of the Harmony Set are likely to imply change of position of peaks of the vector strengths as the interactions between null elements superpose, which is likely given that regularity of events (regularity of change in similar situations) is guaranteed by the GPE itself. So by Occam's razor, your work can be simplified, and the endpoint of simplification would be to simply accept the GPE (as a matter of skeptical commitment) and see where it leads.

Accepting Euclid's fundamentals is O.K. although all of mathematics is initially degenerate under the General Principle of Equivalence and the problem of bundling.

The definitions themselves are fine, but make assumptions that there are such things, and that they are in themselves as we define them to be based on experience. But this is why the FQXi website exists, because under Kant and others we can't really do so with confidence.

'Information' - is dark energy information? Not according to the definition.

'Have no part' - there is probably no need to refer to geometric objects. Why not just 'objects'? Then an object can be generalized to an 'omnet' and then the idea becomes global, which is necessary for a secure argument, I think.

'Point' - Here is the concept that forced me to build the Harmony Set, for if there is a point, how can a point, which can have no part, have any property that can be connected to any other point, for there is always difference between two points (assuming that points are actual objects, or actual omnets within the actual ontology (referring to my essay) and there is nothing that can connect them to make either a line or extension, unless there is some overarching principle that bring such points and their connections (see my essay). That is, the whole concept of point has a problem, which I initially could not identify. From the endpoint rationalist perspective, one finds that the idea of something being of zero dimension (not possible) is not the same as it being dimensionless. The null elements of the Harmony Set are dimensionless, in that they exist without dimension having any meaning. Rather, they bring dimensionality into existence through difference between each null element (even if this is just ontological dependence and priority - see my essay). Then these null elements, if monads, have no extension, whereas the difference between them might be monad-like in that they have extension brought about by the implied dimensionality that pops out in the structure. Of course, I have only generated the 1-space solution, and so it would not be correct to say that these 'monadic' omnets properly correspond to the equivalent forms in higher spaces, at least in the sense Leibniz meant. This is cognitively challenging, I know, but then, once one gets it, it frees up one's thinking on foundational issues (and trades it for harder problems, unfortunately).

The bundling problem applies, and so implies a unique origin for a world of points, or lines, or fluffy animals (meaning anything else - the problem is global). Moreover, how does a world of points that experiences evolution, achieve such evolution, for the points themselves must undergo an infinity of change, and each change would experience an infinity of changes, unless it is instantaneous (the method of such change occurs through the GPE as constructor in my essay).

'Monad' - Yes! But drop the idea of it being geometrical, for one can't trust a pre-existing spacetime or Euclidean (or anything else) background. There is no need for the geometrical for it should develop from the foundational aspects.

'Motion' - as change of place, this could be generalized to include Aristotle's idea of place, so that geometry is irrelevant. Consider living in a two dimensional world where the x-axis is measure in degree of redness (no red, to fully red, say) and the y-axis is measured in degree of temperature. Motion is then simply a change in redness and temperature. Same result, and the human mind would likely come to interpret it similarly to that of change of position (but it would be less interesting) in the same way that the brain can images upside down if wearing glasses that invert the image.

'Variable lifetime of monads': assumes that a monad is aware of, or affected by time in some way. But if a monad is windowless, then this would be a challenge to make consistent, for, unless the system is driven by a universal principle that acts on all at once, how does the world pick out a certain monad for existence or non-existence.

Note: your boundary is not my boundary. Yours is a geometric object. Mine only gains a geometric property by it relations to other boundaries. This is not a point of conflict, just a point of difference.

Whence time in your world model? What is the foundational cause of change?

The Weyl tile argument: Yes! But this argument is founded around the expectation that the real number line is valid. In the Harmony Set interpretation, geometry contains values that are slightly fuzzy - what I call 'block numbers'. In another post I show that the Pythagorean theorem implies that mathematics is cataclysmically inconsistent (view attachment). Block numbers fix the problem, and in doing so imply Heisenberg uncertainty, in that there is a minimum fineness of scale in a Harmony Set universe. Does this imply that your monads have a minimum extension? Depends what you mean by a monad.

In (c) 'Use for writing programs' the bother is that the shifting of an 0 from one place to another, requires that something act, already 'knowing' where the 0 has to be. But what caused the change within the mechanism that made it shift from one place to the next? This leads to an infinite regress, I believe. This is similar to Parmenides argument, and that of Zeno.

Best wishes

Stephen AnastasiAttachment #1: 1_A_problem_for_geometry.pdf

Dear Akinbo,

You must have had a hard time in your youth deciding whether to be a philosopher, lawyer, physicist or physician. :-) I hope you agree by now that the world is most in need of caring physicians.

Your intellectual journey down the fork less traveled (Frost is my favorite poet; "The Road not Taken" may have been the first poem I learned by heart many years ago) is rich with promise. One doesn't hear of Leibniz's monads that often anymore -- I do recall Hermann Weyl's agreement with Leibniz that nature can only be truly understood in the behavior of the very small, so you're in good company.

I would make a note that the mathematical point at infinity is actually realized in the compactification of the complex plane, which shifts the discrete and probabilistic measure functions of the complex Hilbert space to the continuous and deterministic functions of a topological model. You might want to look into that to help further strengthen your argument.

Something else that caught my eye in regard to Newton's idea of spatial translation: " ... unless we postulate that there are two spaces that everywhere coincide, a moving one and one that is at rest, so that the movement of a part of the moving one involves a translation of that item from the corresponding part of the resting one to a different part of the resting space ... That is crazy (translator's inclusion) ... " I have to disagree with the translator's editorializing -- Newton's conception is not crazy; it follows directly from his belief in absolute space and absolute time. The duality is necessary -- which Einstein fixed, with Minkowski's model of continuous spacetime, in which neither space nor time are independently real, but rather preserve physical reality in a union of the two.

Thanks for your comments in my forum, and expect an appropriately high score from me.

All best,

Tom