Edwin,

I did not mean to give the impression that i agree with the assumptions of quantum field theory. Let me explain the point I am interested in regarding "local interaction".

Assume, for the moment, that Newton's law of gravity is valid, namely that gravity is dependent on the inverse square of the distance between masses. If this force were to act instantaneously at a distance, then all masses, even those infinitely far away, would have to be integrated into the total force. But, if the effect of the force has to travel, at a finite speed, then a distance threshold exists, at which masses more distant than the threshold have no effect, since the force has not had enough time to propagate out to that distance. Hence, the force law remains an inverse square, out the the threshold distance, then becomes a step-function, and the force becomes identically zero. Furthermore, the distance threshold constantly increases, so that the amount of mass within the threshold also increases.

Comparing such a force, to Newton's force, would result in an apparent repulsive force (dark energy), that is actually not repulsive, but just diminished effective mass, acting upon very distant objects. The force law appears to evolve, but the cause is not a change in the force per unit mass, but a change in the amount of mass that acts upon another mass.

In your master equation, it is not the del operator acting upon the field, but the other side of the equation that I wonder about. I am not sure how the field times the field could represent the situation described above, in which the "effective" field, is a constantly changing subset of the total field. Unlike Newton's case, one cannot integrate over all space in order to determine the field. Determination of the field would be highly dependent on the initial conditions, namely, the distribution of masses, as they are "swept into" the effective threshold range.

It is also interesting to think about General Relativity, from this non-geometric point-of view. Objects do not respond gravitationally to where other objects are, but instead respond to where they used to be. The greatest differences between these two types of response, occur in situations in which the relative geometry changes the fastest. Hence, in the solar system, one would expect the fastest moving planet, Mercury, to have the greatest discrepancy between the two models; like the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.

Rob McEachern

Hi Rob,

Didn't mean to imply that you agree with QFT, just distinguishing specifics of my theory from QFT approach.

I understand your 'step-function' model and agree that it seems to imply a kind of dark energy.

My model assumes that initially there is nothing but field, and space is defined by the extent of the field. The solution represents a scale-invariant distribution of energy, hence mass, that "fills" space (loosely speaking). So the initial distribution of energy/mass is probably a close approximation to later distributions. Once spherical symmetry breaks (as it must -- I haven't yet calculated 'when' or 'why') local particles are formed. I don't assume that this adds any mass, just "clumps" it, so the distribution probably holds. In this sense I don't see a step function. But I haven't worked out all of the cosmological dynamics. My calculations have focused more on particle aspects of nonlinear gravity.

It is also the case that local C-field dynamics can "oppose" local gravity, hence providing a sort of dark energy. My gross calculations hint that this is reasonable, but I want to try for a Mathematica solution.

So my current idea of the cosmological implications of my model is based on an initial scale-invariant solution that is assumed to hold perfectly until symmetry breaks, and then yield relatively small changes in distribution. I think this model is in rough agreement with observations, but I really have not had time to check it out. I'm afraid my attitude is that, if I can do a better job on particles than the Standard Model, then the cosmological aspects of the theory just "have to" work!

Also, we've got a pretty good handle on particles, whereas there's a new data point for cosmology almost every week, and I expect this to continue for some time. This discourages trying to match my theory to data that may only be good for a short time.

Since I've posted my essay I've been able to come up with a straightforward derivation of general relativity from my master equation. I'm in process of writing that up now. In other words, I expect my theory to show more differences with particle physics than with general relativity.

Thanks for elaborating on your previous comments,

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

It's the step functions I don't see that bother me. Starting out in physics, I learned about using differential equations to describe data. Then, in numerical analysis, I learned to approximate derivatives with finite differences. In other words, initially, I came to think of differentials as the "accurate" description, and differences as the "approximate" description. I now have come to believe the exact opposite. Differentials admit of infinite bandwidths and step functions. I see no empirical evidence that such things exist in reality. Hence, differential equations are merely approximate representations of a finite bandwidth reality. They cannot, by themselves, implicitly define a finite bandwidth process. All the information content that limits the bandwidth must come from outside the equation - from the auxiliary conditions.

For me, the issue is not it from bit or bit from it. It is bit from finite bandwidth. It is the finite bandwidth of reality, that makes it exactly describable via discrete samples, but only approximately describable via differential equations that do not properly model the bandwidth.

I have mentioned the significance of a priori known information, many times in these discussions. An a priori know bandwidth can be built explicitly into a difference equation, but not a differential equation.

Rob McEachern

Edwin,

I was playing a bit fast and loose with the bandwidth terminology in my previous post. Let me be more precise. Think of the del operator being modeled as either an Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) spatial filter or as a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter. By integrating over all the masses out to infinite, Newton's law models the operator as an IIR. But if signals propagate at finite speeds, the correct model must be an FIR filter, but one whose response grows at the speed of propagation.

As long as all the masses are within the range of the FIR response (as in most earth bound experiments), the models produce exactly the same results. But at cosmic distances, they differ. The difference results from the finite extent of the filter's "action" rather than a difference in the inverse square law.

Rob McEachern

Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thanks, for a most positive review. You captured my work perfectly. I am under no illusions a fundamental discontinuity of motion (not time and space) can be accepted readily (the gene thing). But allow me to suggest to you that at some time in the future you may walk up thinking: "why did I ever believe that matter and energy must have a continuous existence".

Given that just about all entrants in this contest have the gene, it is amazing how well I am doing.

And Siri tells me that Edwin Eugene Klingman is master of the game"

Thanks,

Don L.

Dear Rob,

I need to review IIR and FIR as I've not studied signal analysis for decades (except a minor review of Fourier Optics occasioned by your comments last year). My argument is, essentially, that there are no signals to propagate. As you know, outside of the radius of the spherical mass, all the mass may be considered to reside at a point at the 'origin', independent of size or density. The scale-invariant solution of my equation says that the original density distribution of the field energy, hence mass, is scale invariant hence time independent. This implies that it remains the same during inflation, and I believe, post-inflation. My working assumption is that when the field 'condenses' to mass, this does not change the distribution (except locally). In other words there is no signal, step or otherwise, to propagate that would have any dark energy effect. With no signal, IIR and FIR should be essentially equivalent as far as their effects:

Scale invariance = static distribution = no signal to propagate

If one could, say, lop off half the universe, this would change the mass distribution significantly and your analysis would be more relevant. This is similar to the problem that would occur if the sun suddenly disappeared. The step function analysis of this problem seems correct to me.

Your remarks on difference versus differential are interesting and I'll give more thought to those. I certainly agree that reality has a finite bandwidth, finite speed, finite extent -- is finite period. Thus Fourier integration over infinite ranges are clearly approximations. This is why free particles have mathematically infinite distribution, which is clearly ridiculous (although quantum field theorists I know seem not to realize this). On the other hand bound particles such as a hydrogen atom are highly localized and more susceptible to differential treatment. The mistakes, in my opinion, occur when infinite solution techniques are applied to physical reality. I believe I recall you commenting on Dickau's blog about Kauffmann's treatment of self gravitation as limiting upper bound on local energy. Whereas quantum field theory has had these infinite energies for over half a century, Kauffmann shows them to be physically unrealistic (which should have been obvious anyway).

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #167

Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thanks for posting on my blog. That was very kind of you to point out to my readers that I believe in the continuity of space-time. That is something that I do not explicitly point out and it should be.

We are very close in outlook.

One of my goals is to topple the uncertainty principle. Do you have similar leanings?

What do you think of this notion: photons and particles do not move, but they do change positions. What we call velocity is actually a calculation from position to position. If this does not immediately drive you crazy, checkout this experiment that I believe can be performed:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/20_Experiments-_QM.html

Nothing moves but everything changes....

I do not know if you can agree with a lot of my speculations, but I appreciate your openness.

You and a few others make this contest great.

Thanks,

Don L.

Edwin,

Don't take my comments about IIR and FIR filters to literally, in the mathematical sense. Rather, I'm trying to develop two visual analogies, for "self-interaction", one for fields causing gravity, one for particles causing gravity. Call them "Gravity on the surface of a Pond" and "Gravity on the surface of a Petri Dish".

Field View - Gravity on the surface of a Pond:

Boats move on the surface, and create wakes. Wakes propagate outward and disturb the other boats.

Particle View - Gravity on the surface of a Petri Dish - FIR version - non-Newtonian:

A "Big Bang" scatters individual bacterial cells (matter) across an expanding Petri dish. At first the distances between them are too great for any interaction to occur between the scattered cells. But each cell develops into an expanding colony (FIR filter taps), expanding outward at some propagation speed (same as wake in previous model). Eventually some colonies touch others and a central force (like a spring) is created, by the strands of the colony pulling together with a force inversely proportional to the distance squared.

Particle View - Gravity on the surface of a Petri Dish - IIR version - Newtonian:

Same Big Bang scattering, except that instead of scattering individual cells that grow into colonies, it scatters infinitely large colonies (IIR) so that the force producing strands are instantly put in place, all the way out to infinity, rather than having to grow outward at some propagation speed.

In the Field View, a wave-like signal propagates between the masses, and produces the interaction.

In the Particle View, an "operator" associated with each mass, the strands, expands outward, either instantly or gradually, until they contact other operators, and cause an interaction. In the field view, a "sensible" signal expands outward to meet a static sensor. In the particle view, the sensor (filter or operator) expands outward to meet a static entity being sensed.

Neither the disturbance in the field, nor the operators are directly detectable. But the resulting interactions would produce detectable movement of the masses. How would the movements differ, if the force between the masses was always the same, as Newton's inverse square, or whatever?

The IIR, Newtonian Petri Dish results in a global, instantaneous action-at-a-distance. But the FIR, non-Newtonian interaction is localized by the finite, but growing size, of each colony's force producing strands, or "lines of force".

Rob McEachern

Afterword:

It was the Casey essay that got me thinking about "How did Faraday and Maxwell visualize the problem?" My guess is that Faraday saw it as the Particle View, IIR version. As per the bible, "In the beginning..." the matter and the interconnecting "lines of force" were put into place, and then left to interact. Maxwell's much more mathematical view centered upon unchanging differential operators; since the operators cannot expand to meet the particles, the particles must somehow travel to meet the operators - hence the field.

But with my background, I tend to think of operators like tapped delay lines - the pond has dispersed tide gauges, like FIR filter taps, whose outputs can be combined to form difference operators etc. (filters), which can change over time. Tide gauges can be moved, their number changed, and the manner of interconnecting them can change.

Perhaps an analogy could be made between the expanding cosmos and the growing cortex of the brain. The whole brain grows in size, within it, neurons grow, and grow connections (lines of force) and signals (forces) are transmitted via those connections. The interactions thus have three relevant speeds; speed of brain growth, speed of neuronal connection growth, speed of interaction along established lines of force.

Rob McEachern

Rob, each of those three paragraphs is a little jewel, and together represent the reason I always look forward to communicating with you.

Oops. I missed the comment before the afterword.

I should emphasize that my field equations express mass dependence in terms of mass density, so particles and fields, at least in the early moments of the universe, are best viewed as simply different density distributions. Of course as the universe grows the field density diminishes while particle density is locked into localized distributions. Due to essentially random fluctuations in density these tend to aggregate into galaxies and galactic clusters. If, as I suppose, the global distribution remains effectively scale-invariant, then there is very little non-local change propagating, and galactic formation is viewed as local with no global significance.

So initially it is the fields causing gravity, globally. Then local "condensation" produces particles (in the expanding universe). The fields continue to weaken but the particles aggregate and produce stronger, but localized, fields. In other words the nature of the self-interaction varies until finally the most significant self-interaction is in our brains.

Which is fun!

In your particle view above, the FIR version is closest to what I imagine, but this assumes that there are signals spreading outward. If the distribution of mass does not change, as seen beyond a certain radius, then there are no signals, so there is no 'expanding colony' except in higher order approximations. But in any case, the FIR view seems more realistic.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Our struggle reminds me of one of my favorite movie lines, from Clint Eastwood's "Eiger Sanction". The mountain climbers are in trouble. Clint says to one of them, "Don't worry, we'll be OK". The other responds, "I do not think so. But we shall continue in style!"

Keep up the good fight!

Rob McEachern

Hi Edwin,

I very much enjoyed your essay. You wrote:

1. "Without the physical, there simply is no information. To argue otherwise one must show how a world with no physical reality can be brought into existence from information. Wheeler's remark "how to combine bits in fantastically large numbers to obtain what we call existence" was just unsupported fantasy."

I think the question is whether what we experience as "physical" is really better understood as "virtual". Is our "physical reality" an illusion? When we look out at the world, are we just seeing an immersive virtual illusion? We have the example (or analogy) of software agents in a virtual world. What they might "perceive" as "physical" we know to be "virtual", that is, just based on information. Are we in the same position, that everything we take as "real" is virtual and the ground of being is unobservable?

2. "It's been a Participatory Universe from the beginning."

I agree that is the simplest explanation.

While yours is an elegant bottom-up explanation for the cosmos, my essay Software Cosmos takes a top-down approach. While my starting point is very different, my picture does include a hyperspherical gravito-electric field (i.e. without boundary conditions) that may provide a venue for yours. You also may like the fact that I endorse Geometric Algebra and do not require Inflation in my model. Anyway, I hope you find some food for thought or a reference or two in there that will be of use to you.

Hugh

P.S. I have a copy of your Microprocessor Systems Design (vol II) still on my bookshelf, from my days of developing operating systems for new computer hardware. Chapter 7, which describes the construction of a floating point processor, is a remarkable account of how a higher order can be constructed from simpler parts. Consider that today's virtual worlds like Second Life, while implemented in software, are reliant on decent floating point calculations. We could say that conceiving and implementing the FPU design is where the physical world opens to the possibility of hosting a virtual world. You described that transition in 62 pages that are still enjoyable today as a reminder of the ineffable pleasure of seeing such possibilities open up.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #174

    Dear Edwin,

    Thank your for your many very interesting ideas. Here are a few comments.

    The real world is not a purely mathematical or informational entity. As I understand your essay, this is one of your main theses. I agree with this contention. For one thing, nearly all of mathematics has no relevance to the physical world. Therefore, some additional principle or fact of reality must account for actual existence. Nonetheless, you would, I think, allow that some part of mathematics is at least useful for the understanding of physical existence. Indeed, you present your theory in a mathematical way. What about the mathematics which is not physically applicable? Is that just fictional or made up? Or does it have a different kind of Platonic reality of its own? This point is to the side of your topic, and therefore you did not discuss it, but it would be interesting to know your views about it.

    I also have to agree with your insistence that awareness is a genuine feature of reality. Would you consider your position a kind of panpsychism? If awareness is a primordial property of the field, that would seem to imply that awareness, or at least proto-awareness, is everywhere.

    I am not clear about the relationship in your theory between this universal aboriginal awareness and the self-interaction which gives rise to the physical world. Are these two separate properties of the field? Two aspects of the same property? Or something else?

    Finally, your essay should remind us not to be too quick to dismiss awareness from reality altogether, based on what are thought to be the findings of physics. You propose a new system of physics, based on one field. Even those who accept some other system--such as the hundreds of fields, which you attribute to Susskind--will have to admit the force of your critique of the current state of knowledge (or current state of ignorance and belief). Given this not very satisfactory situation, do we really have adequate reason to suppose that awareness, consciousness, and thinking are something other than the way they present themselves to us?

    Laurence Hitterdale

      Dear Edwin,

      Not sure why the system posted my comments (immediately above) as anonymous. However, I signed on again, and this should attach my name to the post.

      Thanks.

      Laurence Hitterdale

      Dear Hugh,

      Thank you for your comment and your analysis. I've just read your fascinating essay and will respond (mostly) on your page, however I will say here that it seems to be one of the most serious approaches to software cosmos that I have read.

      Your ask, "is our "physical reality" an illusion?" This is of course the key question. You then ask "when we look out at the world, are we just seeing an immense virtual illusion?" and you mention 'Second Life' in your comment. Several years ago I spent some months in 'Second Life', and it is certainly a powerful example of what the last decades technology can accomplish. If one projects this to the 'ultimate' then a software cosmos seems more feasible.

      As you note in your postscript, I do have hardware and software experience, and I cannot conceive of how one produces the software without the hardware. This is the 'It from Bit' aspect that I get hung up on. For example you mention that "the implicate representation can be encoded for storage efficiency...". Storage in what? I agree, in principle, that we can compute the dynamics of the world to a degree that visually everything we see is 'virtual'. But it doesn't solve the problem of my self-awareness (at least for me it doesn't).

      I very much like your mathematical analysis based on geometric algebra, Joy's ideas, Rowlands and your other references. And you are correct that I find your references very interesting. Thanks for those, too. I'm also a fan of Doug Sweetser and reference him in an earlier essay. But I was unaware of Finkelstein's GA approach to QED. I also agree with you that fields, rather than individual particles, are more practical in the implicate.

      Finally, you ask, "if the universe is a simulation, can we detect its 'hardware'?". (Thanks for the references that address this question.) Instead, you ask "can we detect its software?", and you propose to search for "fractal creasing".

      In short, you've opened up a whole genre of research in your references. I do not believe this approach is satisfactory as an explanation of awareness, as I am aware of much besides visual input, including being directly aware of gravity. Nevertheless you've written a masterful essay that has made me aware of many new ideas and relevant resources and that's worth a 10!

      For your information, since you enjoyed my decades-old bit-slice design of a floating-point computation unit, I've recently (~2008) implemented a much improved version in an FPGA and combined this with my 'iMEM' Intelligent memory architecture, designed specifically to produce exactly the kind of dynamic calculations you write about. I did not see your email address, so please email me at klingman@geneman.com.

      Thanks for reading my essay and commenting, but most of all thanks for writing your essay and calling it to my attention.

      My best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Laurence,

      Thanks for your comment and questions. As I noted on your page, you handle "bit as fundamental" and "universe as computer" so masterfully that the topic should be closed! Nevertheless, if you'd like to see how fascinating the "other side" can be, I recommend Hugh Matlock's essay [see comment above yours.]

      You point out a little-noted fact, that "nearly all of mathematics has no relevance to the physical world" and conclude "therefore some additional fact of reality must account for actual existence." Then you ask if I agree that math is useful for understanding physical existence, and whether it does not have a Platonic reality of its own, noting that I begin with an equation...

      My basic assumption is that the universe either began as ONE thing, from which ALL evolved, or it may as well of been created with billions of things. Once we assume more than one thing, why stop at two? And the Platonic reality of math is more than ONE thing. But further, I find that the existence of physical thresholds (which falls out of the Master equation with the quantum of action) leads to natural binary states and physical continuity (assumed in the Master equation) that leads to 'circuitry' or connections between such states that easily implement logical circuits AND, OR, XOR (COMPARE) and that such gates easily implement ADD and SUBTRACT circuitry and, as noted in Hugh Matlock's comment above, floating-point computation. Kronecker famously said "God made the integers, all else is the work of man." Since the integers derive from simple counter circuits (which can be implemented in DNA, silicon, or neurons, etc.) I find that math is a "side effect" of physical reality. In other words, physical reality instantiates 'logic', probably as a necessary consequence of self-consistent existence, and physical logic leads straight-forwardly to counters, natural numbers, and all of math. There is no reason to assume another Platonic 'realm'. I suspect this is just part of the confusion that generally surrounds consciousness.

      But math circuitry, like logical circuitry, leads to language, and just as natural language can produce fiction having only remote ties to reality, mathematical language can be untied from reality. As you note, this is why we cannot conclude that physical reality derives from math, because why just "some" math and not "all" math?

      You also agree that "awareness is a genuine feature of reality." You ask whether I would consider my position a kind of panpsychism. I guess I'd have to say it is a "kind of" panpsychism, although, as I understand it, panpsychism generally ignores relations to physical reality. So I think I'm more 'nuanced' than panpsychism, and, not having any conjecture about the 'cause' of physical reality, I leave the door open to a "higher cause".

      You further ask whether the universal aboriginal awareness and the self-interaction which gives rise to the physical world are two separate properties of the field or two aspects of the same property, or something else. First, I should note that the self-interaction does not "give rise to the physical world". I don't know what gave rise to the physical world, but I'm convinced that those who believe that mathematics (or information) can or did give rise to the physical world are badly mistaken. But since we find ourselves in (and are directly aware of) a physical world, I start with the simplest possible world, one field, and conclude that, to evolve, it could only interact with itself. There was simply nothing else to interact with!

      And I find this reasonably implies that to interact with itself the field must have "some" awareness of itself. I would probably not insist on this aspect (?) except for the fact that I have awareness of myself, and based on experience and on reasonably expert awareness of computers and biology, I don't think my awareness is an artifact. Therefore I conclude its primordial. With this assumption I find that everything I know of could reasonably have evolved from the one aboriginal field. What brought that field into existence is an ultimate mystery and will certainly never be "logically" explained.

      Your final question, whether awareness, consciousness, and thinking are something other than the way they present themselves to us, is the essence of Korzybski's dictum. They *are* the territory.

      Thanks again Laurence, for your essay and for your comment. I noted on your page weeks ago that your essay was worth a 10 but I didn't score it at the time. I've just remedied that.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Laurence, my mistake. Upon attempting to rate you, I find that I already did so.

      Hi Edwin,

      Thanks for your comments and compliments. You wrote:

      > I cannot conceive of how one produces the software without the hardware.

      I agree that there has to be some kind of "hardware". But I do not think it has to be what we call "physical" (And that is what I took to be the "It" of the "It from Bit"). Of course, that means I should come up with a proposal for what kind of "hardware" is involved. I think that this is a difficult question because many kinds of hardware can generate the same software effects, as I mention in the essay.

      > I agree, in principle, that we can compute the dynamics of the world to a degree that visually everything we see is 'virtual'. But it doesn't solve the problem of my self-awareness (at least for me it doesn't).

      There are a lot of interesting issues related to awareness, and unfortunately (or fortunately!) the essay length limit prevented me getting into them. The first thing I would note is that learning and memory do not seem to depend on a physical brain. So the question is where is memory held if not in the brain?

      One advantage of the software cosmos model postulating an "unobservable hardware" basis for the physical world is that same basis can be suggested for storing our memories. In other words, if the world is virtual, then our memories could be akin to those of AI software agents that use the hardware memory rather than needing any representation in their virtual world for it.

      Of course, this suggestion really just kicks the can down the road, and inquisitive minds will want to know how the invisible hardware works...

      My hope is that figuring out the first level will give us enough clues that we can make a guess about these even more difficult questions regarding consciousness.

      > Nevertheless you've written a masterful essay that has made me aware of many new ideas and relevant resources and that's worth a 10!

      Thank you, I am delighted you liked it so much!

      > I've recently (~2008) implemented a much improved version in an FPGA and combined this with my 'iMEM' Intelligent memory architecture, designed specifically to produce exactly the kind of dynamic calculations you write about.

      I would love to see it... I will send you an email. Perhaps you will join with essayist Brian Ji to design the geometric algebra processing hardware for my software cosmos. :)

      Hugh

      Edwin,

      OK, so the "existence" and "changes" in this "self field" constitute what? Measures? ...they better be .... and .... then your arguments draw on other's measured data to confirm or deny your drawn conclusions. You therefore remove yourself from measures of your "self" field changes and revert to quoting data external to that measured by the "self."

      That sounds like a reductionist requirement of holistic to obtain the measured definition of ones self? If your single field explains everything from inside out, why does it require an outside -> in confirmation?

      The reason may be due to our measured reality requiring this confirmation from others, and, it is highly likely that others have an alternate approach to your self field and can match your measurable results in anything you will ever predict. This implies that many relevant, coherent, calculable paths may lead to your very same conclusions .... so who is correct?

      Until science finds the correct "context" to apply all we measure, natural breaks in coherent knowledge will inevitably result, because the next step in a GUT correlation requires a deeper understanding of the single context that all measured science operates under. This implies that everyone can be correct when viewing information in their own sub-context, and, when the universal context is eventually found and accepted, all sub-contexts can be projected onto it and commonalities will appear with differences. This implies that multi-universe theory may be one man's way of saying each of us has our own measured universe with all sub-contexts merging into the single context supporting "life" as the center of creation. Holonomic physics/CFT/Shape Dynamics/etc., your "self" field/ all may simply point to being capable of merging into a much deeper, unique context.

      It would then appear that unification requires context definition and your self field doesn't seem to fit the entire bill when it comes down to the "self" having to be "measured" by others. We know that the measurers HAVE to interject in the results of the measure and add their own personal sub-context bias.

      Best regards,

      Tony