And my main message is..
I see having more than one road to the same end as powerful evidence there is something worth seeing there. I don't think the monad is any different. If it is found essential in a new setting or in a new way, that is good. I posted the whole paragraph from Feynman that Than Tin excerpted, that eloquently makes my point, back on my essay page. And you can read the comment from me I'm struggling to recap there.
Have Fun,
Jonathan
Hello Than and Jonathan,
I will posting on your blogs what I feel can throw more light on the scheme at hand. And thanks for all the information and references. I will be checking them out.
Regards,
Akinbo
Hi Akinbo,
I just upped the score on your underrated essay.
Point particles are a problem, and physics is crippled until it gets rid of them. Standard physics responds with do not worry about point particles, calculus handles them just fine, and in fact it gets rid of the logic of that goof off Zeno. The problem as you know is that particles are not points and calculus does not get rid of Zeno paradox. We are stuck with Zeno's conclusion that nothing can move. That is the truth, but it is not a show stopper. Remember the show must go on!
So, I started my "monad" logic with Zeno's statement that I interpret as "no quantum mechanical object can have a velocity in a space-time that is continuous". Since everything is composed of quantum mechanical particles, all quantum particles and all classical objects cannot move. How can that be?
The answer is that Zeno left out a detail that should have been included. Zeno's statement should read: "Nothing moves, everything changes". There is no such thing as velocity outside of calculations we make on a changing space-time.
You are not alone :)
Best of Luck,
Don L.
PS thanks of the history of monads
Dear Akinibo
thank you for your nice essay, refreshing my high school knowledge about monads. Maybe your monads are the qubits of my quantum cellular automaton, though they have no extension literally, since space-time is emergent from them: but in this sense, they then acquire a Planck extension.
Coming back to your problem raised in by essay thread about the Mach principle and the Newton bucket, here I report my answer from my thread.
You are touching the apocryphal principle of Mach, which Einstein was so fond of, but, unfortunately he couldn't achieve in his GR. Its space-time metric played the role of a kind of ether. In his Lecture in Leiden he said that he believed that the rotating Newton bucket would have the water pushing up the bucket walls, even in an empty universe (see the masterpiece Einstein's biography of Walter Isaacson). Do we have the absolute inertial frame, or even the rest frame, as an ether? In practice we have an ether: it is the background radiation. It is a frame with respect to which we can check that we are moving. And, in practice, we define the inertial frame only relying on fixed stars. In an emergent space-time from an automaton Lorenz covariance is distorted, meaning that the principle of relativity does not hold in a ultra-relativistic regime.
I will post this also on your blog, as you asked me.
Thank you for raising the issue.
My best regards
Mauro
Dear Don,
Your comments are treasured. Yes, I agree Zeno left out a detail. What is that detail? I will post this on your blog and give my suggestion what I think that detail could be. And thanks for the rating.
Best regards,
Akinbo
Dear Akinbo,
I read your fine essay some time ago but could not think of any intelligent comment or question that would do it justice. I was hoping to do better than very well written, exceptionally clearly explained and relevant.It was interesting for me to learn about monads. Anyway for now I want to let you know I have read it and think you deserve to do well. Good luck, Georgina
Dear Akinbo and all,
Thank you for posting in my essay. Here is some work I am doing to achieve what you are trying to do as well.
Simple mathematical truth of zero=I=infinity, iSphere and iSeries as described below can explain all the aspects of reality mathematically.
I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.
I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.
iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.
One of the sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
the second sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.
Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation
Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i
Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".
Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.
Examples
starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5
-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5
Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 2 5 13 34 ...
Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 3 8 21 55 ...
Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)
The above equations hold true for any value of I.
As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.
http://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin
d-super.pdf
Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off from a basic singularity. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 (singularity) and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.
Its also interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the DNA structure in the attached image. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states of singularity and duality are interconnected and are the source of life.
Love,
Sridattadev.
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
