It’s Fibonacci’s Bit - Seeding the Universe with 0 and 1 by Antony Ryan

Antony,

Interesting read. Would you mind elaborating a bit on your conclusion. In particular your mention of the Holographic Principle:

"This system also lends itself to a spatially 3-dimensional Universe emerging from 0-dimensionailty, because information exchange is limited to 0, 1, 1, and 2-dimensionailty within a Black Hole, which is hidden from the 3-dimensionality outside. In this respect Black Holes are analogies to the holographic principle in reverse"

Thank You.

Anthony,

The real Universe could not have a base 2 system with 0 and 1 at its foundation because the real Universe is unique.

Hello Antony

I have read your essay with interest. When Fibonacci discovered his series he had little idea of its amazing and wide applications in other branches of mathematics, in describing some geometrical patterns in nature and as you describe, in theoretical physics.

Your approach makes sense if you posit a granular vacuum in which each granule communicates with adjacent ones. The pattern spreads accumulating new granules step by step in a linear, causal logical and easily pictured way. In the discussion on probability in my Beautiful Universe Theory I have shown how this leads to explaining quantum probability - not from a vacuum chaos but from exquisite order, such as a binomial distribution in a lattice. This is very similar to Pascal's triangle, hence to Fibonacci.

I am no expert on entropy or black holes, but feel you might be onto an interesting line for further study and development.

With best wishes

Vladimir

Anthony,

I deeply regret the first comment and I am glad it was removed. Both of the supposedly whole postulated numbers 0 and 1 are formed by a single line. Computers using Boolean algebra represent the physical values of the 0 and the 1 as being identical to a switch (or an electro-magnetic impulse) having the capability of being off for 0, and on for 1. But there is a huge problem. Although abstract 0 and 1 are perfectly formed and ever unchangeable, real switches or real electromagnetic impulses are not so formed. Physically, a real switch can malfunction. It can remain on when it is indicated to be off, or remain off when it might be perceived to be on.

I think an assigned -1 representing the probability of false positive/negative indications has to be considered for all computations. The insertion of the -1 would of course always have to be uniquely random.

Anthony, it's always good to see an essay that uses a bit of number theory. Number theory is the other thing I sometimes do some work on apart from physics. I was especially chuffed one time when a paper I wrote on number theory was cited by a physicist. The connections run deep and Fibonacci numbers often come up in such links. I think you are very right that they are important to nature.

It will take me until the weekend to seriously read essays.I did though read the first couple of pages of your paper. I presume that you are proposing an unfolding of spaces of various dimensions according to the Fibonacci sequence.

The icosian or 120-cell has two quaternions with length (1/2)(1 +/- sqrt{5}) where the plus one has length 1.618..., which is the golden mean. In fact these quaternions define something called the golden field in a Galois ring. This is related to the Fibonacci sequence.

Cheers LC

I was asked to comment on this essay. I am an informatics and software engineer by education and trade so this is outside of my normal scope of interest. With that said I think it was well written and your theory well stated. I am reminded of the solutions to AIDS protein configurations that were solved by the social gaming platform fold.it. I bring this up as it reinforces the theory that the universe doesn't do things on a whim. The protein uses as little energy as possible to exist and I believe that is a possible law of the universe. Your correlation to possibility of preserving information and mathematical balance only makes sense as why destroy the information? If this universe is trying to go back to zero then it would need a mechanism to do that and that mechanism would be as efficient as possible. Each of your possible "strangely diverse quantum like results" seem to each attempt a balance.

Again, this may be complete rubbish and below what you are used to. I wish you the best of luck.

Hi Antony,

Thanks for your comments over at my paper. I agree that our viewpoints are compatible, though each of us does have a somewhat different focus. I also found your paper very interesting and well-written.

I'm intrigued by the relation between your account and Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDTs), which you mentioned above in the comments. Lately, Ambjorn and his co-workers have been connecting CDTs with Horava-Lifshitz gravity, which interests me because of the existence of a preferred frame in the latter, such a frame being consistent with the kind of large-scale nonlocality that I describe. (Indeed, Niayesh Afshordi has argued that something like his gravitational aether can be viewed as the low-energy limit of Horava-Lifshitz gravity.) This aspect of CDTs may be worth exploring as you develop your ideas further.

At any rate, good luck to you in the contest!

-Willard

Dear Antony

Very attractive when you compare with the story of "chicken and egg" because I also used to think like that, but I found a different result - more precisely.

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

Dear Sir,

Many of your views in this essay has been discussed in our essay published on May 31 from a totally different perspective. You are welcome to visit us and comment on it.

In the field of science, the 19th century was one of experimentation, 20th century of excitement and 21st century of observation. Thus, it is no surprise that Wheeler was excited to find something he thought novel and was excited about it. But in hind sight, if we analyze his views minus excitement, we find a totally different story.

First: "everything we observe in the known Universe (the 'it') is less fundamental than the information that produces it (the 'bit')". Fundamental has been defined as of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary. Thus, the above statement means that the observable is nothing more than the sum total of ALL information (observation or reporting of the result of measurement) about the observable. Since every measurement measures only one aspect, how can we be sure that we have measured and correctly reported ALL aspects of something? Secondly, observation only reports the state and does not create or influence the state. The state can evolve in time independently. Thus, it is invariant to information or the absence of it. Information is the perception of the observer about the state of the observable in a universally communicable way. Hence the statement: "information that produces it" is not correct.

By definition, the first two numbers in the Fibonacci sequence are 0 and 1, and each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two. But what do 0 and 1represent? Number is a perceived property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,4,....n depending upon the sequence of perception. Zero represents the temporal absence at "here-now" of something that exists elsewhere. Only in this way, we can perceive the absence of something and label its number as zero. Thus, Wheeler's 0 and 1 represent the absence or presence of something or false and true about a statement. By themselves, they are meaningless. They acquire meaning only after they are associated with some observable. The concept was known as "ahoratra vaada" in ancient India and there is much literature on this subject. Nature functions in cycles and Fibonacci sequence is one such cycle.

As we have pointed out, observation is the reporting of a state of something at a given time. While the object evolves temporally, it the observation made at time t is "frozen" for use at other times when the state has changed further. Thus, information, which is the result of observation, is time invariant. The object, about which such information is obtained, is time variant. Hence the object cannot have information about itself. It is true that "no information from inside the black hole can be received"; but it due to our inability to measure in the first place. Without measurement, we cannot have information. Hence talking about its directionality is meaningless.

The concept of event horizon is based on false assumptions. A pulse of light evolves in time as a sphere and not as a circle. Hawking in his Brief history of Time has tricked everyone by first taking the Surface of Earth as 2-dimensional (which it is not) and then taking the example of a stone thrown into the surface of water. He added time as the third dimension (which it is not) before adding the third spatial direction as the fourth dimension. The circle formed on the surface of the water evolves in time as a bigger and bigger circle and not as a conic section. If you take the three spatial directions together, it will be an increasing sphere and not a time cone.

Direction has meaning only with reference to other objects, whereas dimension can be described without reference to other objects. Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. The talk of extra dimensions is non-sense. Even after more than a century, no one has any idea about it. When we talk about 1 or 2 dimensions, we really mean cross sections of a three dimensional object. Time does not satisfy this condition to be called a dimension. Yet, since space and time are infinite and co-exist independently as the base on which all transformations take place; we have to use unidirectional time to describe the state at any given moment.

There can be no negative direction for time or cause and effect. Consider an example:

A B → C D.

Here a force makes A interact with B to produce C and D. The same force doesn't act on C and D as they don't exist at that stage. If we change the direction of the force, B acts on A. Here only the direction of force and not the interval between the states before and after application of force (time) will change and the equation will be:

B A → C D and not B A ← C D.

Hence it does not affect causality.

Entropy is related to inertia. Elsewhere in these threads, we have discussed about it elaborately.

Let us apply our mind independently to everything that is told to us or are found in text books. Blind acceptance is superstition, which is harming the cause of science.

Regards,

basudeba