Hi Roger,

Good to see you here again. The first part of your paper reminds me a little of another entry, written by Sundance Bilson-Thompson. His is also very short.

I can see that your example with the packed spheres you are trying to construct a model for an existent state with a minimum of assumptions, but somehow the model still seems a little contrived, in fact I was reminded of your professional background where I imagine one frequently sees models similar to the one you mention as representations of molecules. However, I commend you for sticking your neck out and making an attempt.

To me, the question of whether or not something exists is incomplete, because it does not specify where it is that the thing's existence is asked about. It is natural for us to assume that everything exists in spacetime, but is it not possible that that in assuming that we are making the same mistake as our ancestors, who 500 years ago thought that the earth was the center of the universe? You may find this paper interesting, which is not my contest entry but a paper that might be in tune with your lifelong interest: Do photons exist in spacetime?. If this idea has any merit, then your Wittgensteinian approach to ontological questions may need to be differentiated some more.

Anyway, I wish you all the best

Armin

PS: Are there any new developments on your idea pertaining to infinities, which we discussed last year?

    Armin,

    Hi. Thanks for the comments! I'm looking forward to reading your essay, hopefully sometime this week. I actually commented on Dr. Bilson-Thompson's essay about the similarities between our thinking.

    I can understand why my model might seem contrived, but when it's compared to other models in physics, like string theory with its 10 or 23 or however many dimensions, I think my contrivances are pretty minimal!

    I agree that my model using spheres is kind of like the methods they often use in biochem. to model the components of biomolecules (proteins, DNA, etc.) as hard spheres. But, I've actually had this idea from even before I went into college, so I don't think I got it from there. The idea of the sphere as the shape an existent entity would be when there's no information provided by the entity about shape provided seems to make sense to me.

    In terms of where the existent entity exists, my view is that they don't exist in any pre-existing domain. Otherwise, we'd have to explain where that domain comes from. Instead, I think that each of these entities creates a position in space by its very existence. The expanding set of them then is the space part of spacetime. Each location in space is one of these entities. I think the time part of spacetime is not fundamental and is just a function of these entities interacting with each other and transferring energy via their shape changes. If these spheres were totally inflexible and didn't move at all, I can't see how there would be any time. I don't actually see my model as much different than vibrating strings in string theory except I provide a reason in my model for why my entities are vibrating/changing shape.

    I looked briefly at your "Do photons exist in spacetime?" article and will look at it in more detail over the next week since it's not quite light reading! But, I certainly agree with you that we should never assume the existence of anything like spacetime. Everything has to be explained.

    There's not much new on my infinity stuff. With what little spare time I have after work and stuff, I work on trying to flesh out the model in the current essay.

    How's school going? You're an undergrad. right? You've got some pretty good thinking skills, I'd say, before you even go to grad. school! My best friend just moved from Ann Arbor to Toronto where his wife is from so I won't be coming up there much anymore. It's a very nice town. People here in Columbus, OH, where Ohio State is, hate it, though. Pretty strange!

    Good luck on your essay and everything else! See you.

    Roger

    Dear Roger,

    A couple of quick comments:

    "The idea of the sphere as the shape an existent entity would be when there's no information provided by the entity about shape provided seems to make sense to me."

    This is exactly an example of the central principle that I mention in my entry as underlying quantum superposition e.g compare a sphere specified only by r=3 with one given by the double integral [math]9\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\phi\int_{0}^{\pi}sin\theta d\theta[/math]

    I am glad to see that you have already arrived at the essence of this insight yourself.

    "If these spheres were totally inflexible and didn't move at all, I can't see how there would be any time."

    I think the central lesson of relativity is that space and time are on an equal footing, though of course they manifest themselves differently. What distinguishes massive objects from massless energy is a finite proper time, and proper time is proportional to the four-dimensional interval.

    That you can have time even in a spacetime with inflexible solids which do not move with respect each other is, I believe, due to a deep connection between proper time and gravity (Since gravity in effect a manifestation of the deviation from distances in flat i.e. Minkowski spacetime). Specifically, each of the solids still sets up a gravity field that propagates outwards at a finite speed. This is in effect a clock because you can distinguish the shape of spacetime before and after the gravity field has reached a given region that is a certain distance from the solids.

    Pertaining to your question, yes, I was supposed to graduate last term but couldn't decide whether to continue on in philosophy or in physics, so I decided to stay a little longer. Too bad about Ann Arbor, but if you do happen to know that you will be coming up here let me know, my email is armin@umich.edu.

    All the best,

    Armin

    Armin,

    Hi. Well, in terms of spheres, I guess great minds think alike! :-) I noticed you'd posted a comment over on Sundance Bilson-Thompson's essay. I had commented there also that I thought his idea of minimal arbitrariness which says that if there's no info. telling a body to curve, it will keep going straight was very similar to the reasoning I use in the sphere example. That is, when there's no information given by a physically existent entity about the shape of the entity or about corners or angles (e.g. nothing other than that it exists), then the sphere must be the same in all directions, e.g. a sphere.

    About the idea of time being given by a gravity field propagating through a region, if there were no motion and no energy which I'm suggesting there would not be if these spheres are totally unchanging and inflexible, there would be no propagation of gravity fields or of anything. I doubt there'd be gravity. My view is that these spherical existent entities aren't just a background spacetime in which energy and matter move. Instead, they're the source of energy and change in the universe (as in the last step in the model in the essay), and all energy, matter, change, etc. in the universe is due to their shape changes and how they propagate these changes to their neighbors. If it weren't this way, then we'd also have to explain where the energy, matter, gravity come from in addition to explaining where the background spacetime comes from.

    On deciding between philosophy and physics, I sympathize. It's hard as heck to figure out what to do in life. I went through all that with biochemistry/physics/business. Eventually, I had to get a job so I wouldn't have to borrow from others and have decided since then that you can't do everything in life. You just have to pick the field that will let you most pursue the thing you want to accomplish before you get to age 90 or so. Anyways, good luck. It's hard.

    Go Buckeyes! :-)

    Roger

    Dear Roger,

    I welcome your essay that written in attractive - readable style (as the good essay and no else!) And you came to a healthy-realistic conclusion. The color of cat is not so important, but important is - is he hunting the mice? (I think this is Russian parable!) I will read your work one more time to say something more important. And I offer you my work ESSAY hope it will in your test then we can exchange opinions. I will wait you in my forum.

    Good wishes,

    George

      George,

      Thanks for your nice comments! And, that saying is very true not just in physics but in life! I'll try to read your essay this week.

      Roger

      Dear Roger,

      I have re-read and rated your essay as very likely for me work (then only!)

      I hope we will continue contact on further (my email in my essay)

      Best wishes,

      George

      Dear Roger,

      I think you are asking a very sensible and logical question here. I too think that the nature of "existent state" is most important. I formulated a geometric scheme that partly unifies the forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. From this theory, my essay entry came. I concluded Bit and It were equally fundamental, but actually your existent state would be an equivalent result from what I find around the Fibonacci sequence and entropy.

      Well done - great work! Nice read and very interesting!

      Best wishes,

      Antony

        Antony,

        Hi. Thank you for the comments and feedback! I'm going over to read your essay now. Good luck in the contest and in your thinking!

        Roger

        8 days later

        Dear Roger

        Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

        (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

        said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

        I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

        The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

        Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

        Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

        I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

        Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

        Good luck and good cheers!

        Than Tin

          Than,

          Hi. Thanks for the comments. I absolutely agree that the same underlying thing can be thought of in completely different and even opposite ways just depending on how you're thinking of it or from what perspective you're looking at it. I even think that "something" and "nothing" are just two different names for the same underlying thing, which is what we've previously called the lack-of-all.

          This lack-of-all in and of itself is the entirety. It's everything that is present. Entirety and everything are relationships defining what is contained within, and I believe that a relationship defining what is contained within is an existent entity. Just like how the complete list of elements in a grouping is what defines a set (e.g. an existent entity). So, in this way, I think "something" and "nothing" are both ways of looking at the presence of an existent entity.

          I'll head on over to your essay hopefully this weekend. Thanks!

          Roger

          11 days later

          Dear Roger,

          We are at the end of this essay contest.

          In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

          Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

          eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

          And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

          Good luck to the winners,

          And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

          Amazigh H.

          I rated your essay.

          Please visit My essay.

            Amazigh,

            Hi. Thanks for the comments! I'll check out your essay this week.

            Roger

            Roger,

            Thanks for your response to my 12th June post above. Just completing scoring and saw I'd missed yours, you'll be pleased to see it's now going on.

            With nearly 200 essays read, 220 blog posts on mine, no 'search function' and being over 60 I now have info overload and can't remember if you've read and commented on mine. If not then all points are very welcome.

            Well done again for yours. I think 'real' existent states win but what the hell IS real anyway? I think it's been a very useful subject for focussing minds.

            Best

            peter

              Peter,

              Hi. Yep, I read and commented on your essay on June 15th. I can't remember what I said, unfortunately. I know what you mean about info. overload. I tried to at least scan through all the essays, but there's a lot of stuff out there to keep track of!

              I totally agree with you about what "is" real? Physicists think of electrons as particles, but what's inside an electron. What's inside a bit of information? I still think the most we can say is that, at base, these are existent entities, and "electron" and "bit" are just two different names for some existent thing.

              Good luck to you in the contest and in your thinking!

              Roger

              Dear Roger,

              I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

              I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

              You can find the latest version of my essay here:

              http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

              (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

              May the best essays win!

              Kind regards,

              Paul Borrill

              paul at borrill dot com

                Paul,

                Hi. Thanks for reading my essay! I'll read your essay tonight or sometime this week. There are a lot of essays! But, they're very interesting, I agree.

                Good luck to you!

                Roger

                Write a Reply...