Hierarchical Space-Time by Zoran Mijatovic

Dear Zoran,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

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

Dear Zoran,

Here are my 'considerations and judgement' :)

The essay is more philosophical than actual physics. But since the old name of physics was Natural Philosophy and since common sense (see Israel and George's essays) is now deficient in today's physics your contribution welcome.

In many places, your essay touches on Geometry, e.g. "a place makes the uniqueness of it and bit possible", "It is necessary to postulate the actual existence of objects ... be subject to a pure substance... which makes places possible", "the creation of material and radiation, all of which are composed of extended pointy bits in one way or another". All quotes from your essay.

When you now compare your thoughts to those of Leibniz in his Monadology(first 8 paragraphs only), e.g. "So monads are the true atoms of Nature--the elements out of which everything is made", you will see a lot in common.

As to giving gravity, the role of the the thing which separates and aggregates, which you too admit is a contradiction, I offer 'time' as an alternative. You too acclaim time as 'a function of extension'. See my essay and I will appreciate 'reductio ad absurdum'-like criticisms of my proposals.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Congratulations - I think you go a long way towards 'bringing all references to substances without extension into the physical domain proper'.

You speak of 'correlations between subcellular neurophysiology and the mechanics of choice' - or how mind and cosmos are describable in a single framework.

This is in agreement with my essay, too. Your interesting insights into cognitive mechanics might be clarified and expanded into practical forms by being merged with the paradigm I've developed. I was thinking that as I was reading ...

In my work, cognitive mechanics is described as a field within a vortex system: the nature of a vortex then accounts for what you call 'persistent representations' - or repetitiveness.

I was very interested by how you describe cognitive mechanics in cosmic terms ('By linking structured measurement and structured generalization we give birth to cognitive mechanics'.)

You essentially link the field of our observation to a 'neural canvas' one that is in reciprocal interaction with the evolutionary process. I agree.

And 'metaphysical space-time' (if I understand you correctly) is a 'greater Cosmos' independent of the observer's neural canvas.

I ascribe to 'thought' a true particulate behavior, one that correlates mind to Cosmos.

You say that the thing which separates and aggregates, is one force.

I say this is the result of our Cosmic system's interaction with a General Field of Cosmae. Though you may initially believe this contradicts you, I believe you'll find the paradigm useful.

I describe our four fundamental forces as being the 'splitting up' of a 'Gravitational-Magnetic Force' that comes from the energy field that envelops our Cosmos - a Force that simultaneously affects each of its Particles individually, and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.

Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.

Thus, the 'single-field' Cosmos (consisting of the Observer viewing an environment (or universe) founded upon one field), is replaced by a three-field structure that includes the Observer and therefore accounts for our participatory Cosmos - and for the way the Cosmos 'stores information'.

I'd love to hear what you think of this. I think it would bear fruit for you.

Your essay was most thought-provoking, and I've rated it - I hope you'll do the same for me, and also share your thoughts when the time comes.

Thanks, Zoran!

Dear Sir,

When you say: "In physics a point in time exists", it is correct, but can be misleading. Everything exists in space and time due to mathematical reasons.

Both space and time arise out of the concept "sequence", which implies intervals. When such intervals are ordered; then the interval between objects is called space and that between events is called time. We chose arbitrary repetitive and easily intelligible segments of these sequential arrangements and name them as the respective units. Time is ever shifting and is noted by the changes in everything. The events that are or can be known with full certainty by someone or the other, is past. Everything that can only be predicted with various degrees of certainty is future. The ever shifting interface between past and future is present. The designations: past, present and future, like the origin in a graph, are chosen arbitrarily, as a digitized representation of analog space and time.

Number is a property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no other similars, then it is one. If there are similars, then it is many. Depending upon the times of perception of similars, many can be 2. 3. ....n. Zero is the spatiotemporal absence of something that exists elsewhere. Infinity is like one - without similars - with one difference. While the dimensions (the perception of differentiation between the "internal structural space" from "external relational space" of an object) of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. Since there are no similars like space or time and since the dimensions of space and time cannot be perceived fully, both are infinite. Like different objects with numbers can co-exist, different similarities can co-exist. Mathematics is possible only between numbers, whose dimensions are fully perceived - discrete digits (even in a fraction, the numerator and denominator are digitized). Hence mathematics using infinities is not possible.

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. Mathematical space always contains one dimension less than physical space. For example, a point in physical space has existence, but no dimension, but a point in mathematical space requires at least a paper to draw it. A straight line in physical space is the minimum distance between two points, i.e., in one dimension of a three dimensional space. In mathematical space, it must be drawn on a two dimensional paper. So on. Since time does not fulfill this condition, it is not a dimension. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

Concept is a name given to the result of some past experience stored in the memory. In the perception "this (object) is like that (the concept)", one can describe "that" only if one has perceived it earlier. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. Intuition is the analysis of limited data (impulses) using the memory and predict an outcome like the computer throwing some suggestions when a few letters are typed. Hence it is partial perception.

In the beginning of your essay, you have admitted that: "the neural fabric at the seat of sensibility is little different in lower animals". However, you have not explained the difference. In the mechanism of perception, each sense organ perceives different kind of impulses related to the fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is macro equivalent of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object are brought in close contact with the smell buds, which is macro equivalent of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives when there is motion that is macro equivalent of the gravitational interaction. Individually the perception has no meaning. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are pooled in our memory. In the lower animals, all the sense organs are not fully developed. Hence their capacity to function in tandem is limited. Thus, they only respond to situations based on memory. In human beings, the sense organs are fully developed. Hence they not only respond to situations, but also plan future strategies. This is the difference between them.

Singularity is a misguided concept because division by zero has wrongly been assumed to be infinity. Here in various threads and elsewhere also we have proved that division by zero leaves the number unchanged. We have also given different explanations for dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc. You are welcome to read our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published here on May 31.

Regards,

basudeba

Hello Zoran

Nice effort, though, as an endpoint skeptic, I don't believe that metaphysics,philosophy and cognitive mechanics has evolved at all since Parmenides, so I don't think we are in a position to defend unification.

Now I think I understand why you object to the contents of my essay so strongly. I trust the items below clarify your concerns, and apologize if it damages your hypothesis. Separately, but relevantly, Hume's principal criticism of metaphysics was that it provides no abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number, neither does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence, hence is sophistry and illusion. Contrary to this, my essay begins with metaphysics, shows the cause of our universal structure, its nature, evolution and mathematics, lock, stock and smoking barrel. For some reason few people ever notice this fact. I have seen no other essay that produces any such development, in all the essays ever writ.

To address your concerns about my essay, you said:

"intuitions and ideas precede conceptions and principles..." As a consequence, I could not build the GPE a priori, which would be a Kantian view and more than a little Humean. However, not all ideas come from impressions--there is an exception, namely one's innate ideas of equivalence and difference.

Proof 1:

The priority argument

Without the prior idea of equivalence and difference it is not possible for one to make sense of impressions. Beyond hardwired responses, such as the pain response (which is not understanding in this context) a human's first impression is essentially meaningless because it has no point of reference, no point of difference, and, insofar as thinking entails the internal manipulation of symbols (Kuhn 1991), no meaningful mental symbol that can be used as a basis for recognition. This equates at an epistemological level to an absence of understanding about the external world. Even the notion of manipulation requires difference, for the idea of manipulating a mental symbol in isolation is as sensible as the sound of one hand clapping. The mere naming of this concept of equivalence and difference comes after its existence in the human mind (this process of naming, of course, applies to received impressions as well).

Proof 2:

The dependence argument

Without the internal idea of equivalence, no number of presentations can convey meaning. The Copy Principle (Hume 1995) itself requires that one assign an equivalence status between externally sensed objects and internal mental symbols. Otherwise the world is an internal fiction brought from who knows where and there is no copying at all, but this reverts to the earlier argument of priority.

These priority and dependence arguments gain strength in the recognition that definitions of equivalence and inequivalence first require an internal understanding of the terms.

One might argue that ideas of sameness and difference have no value without acquaintance, but even if the meditator has no sensory input, there is self awareness. Such awareness is a sense of identity, and identity is the notion of being the same as oneself. If it is any more than this, then one must admit notions of inequivalence, so the counterargument is thwarted. Descartes himself argued that one can be certain of one's existence, so there is value in this directly. It remains only for the meditator to develop these ideas of self, equivalence and difference into a rich ontology populated by recognisable objects. That is what I have done in

Dear Zoran,

I have read through your essay and I did appreciate the Kantian ideas you brought up in your essay. You did write a very interesting essay.

1) I would like to ask you what do you mean by the centripetal mode and centrifugal modes?

2) You are describing how physical principles such as the Big bang and galaxy formation, I would to know how you would use your theory to explain something more subtle like quantum electrodynamics (QED) or string theory?

3) You mentioned in the last sentence of your essay that we have now to observe a perfectly spherical cosmos. The universe is cannot be spherical because the negative energy of gravity would no more be equivalent with the positive energy of matter. This cannot be, so space must be flat and this is actually proven.

Best of luck,

Salvish

Dear Zoran,

First, I would say that your comments, scattered around the various essays, have been enjoyable, and often insightful.

Beginning with your abstract, which formulates the problem in different perspectives (it/bit, substance/form, All/One, present/measure) I found your essay both comprehensive and enjoyable, especially as I fully agree that "all things truly immaterial, i.e., happenings, spring from material, cell, and fabric", that is, substance.

As for presentism, not all physicists believe in 'block time'. You might check out Daryl Janzen's essays (previous and current) as well as his comments on Ken Wharton's (block time) essay.

My understanding of information is energy transfer that either crosses an energetic threshold, thereby changing (informing) a local structure, and thus registering information, or not. The 'form' of the local structure, typically embedded in a hierarchy of forms, provides the code-book for interpreting the information. This is my understanding of your "template form within template fabric, where fabric is composed of forms, is a template for conception..." [Although I would agree with Lorraine Ford that the change in structure does not really become "information" until it is apprehended.]

The mechanism of perception of form that I conjecture is the gravito-magnetic sensing of the structural flows of mass (ions in axons and vesicles across synaptic gaps) in the neural fabric. This field phenomenon can encompass any size or scale of dynamic 'template' in the brain, as opposed to any mechanism that depends on individual nodes in unspecified fashion.

You relate "the fabric of metaphysical space-time" to substance and gravity. In another comment, you note that "the missing element in the relationship between entropy, information and the conservation of energy, is gravity...". This is compatible with my own approach. Further, on page 6, you state "gravity, as the foundational fabric from which all things spring..." which agrees with my basic premise, and I invite you to read and comment upon my essay.

If I understand your point about singularity, I agree with it, and Kauffmann (in my references) makes an excellent case that black hole singularities do not exist.

In short, I think we share very similar view of reality.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Zoran,

I don't believe there is 100% overlap between any two essays in this contest, yet some of them are diametrically opposed! I believe that, despite the details of how you perceive gravity (I was going to say 'mistakenly', but it's so hard to convey humor in these comments, as you've found out a few times) we still see it as a key "element in the relationship between entropy, information and the conservation of energy...".

This shows up again in your elaboration on the word 'apprehended'. Lorraine is calling attention to the fact that what is usually called 'information' is really just 'marks' or 'signs' or 'signals' until they enter awareness. I don't think she had in mind, nor did I, the level of detail and gradation which you discuss.

You note that I did not ask a question, but I sort of implied one with the statement: "This is my understanding of your "template form within template fabric, where fabric is composed of forms, is a template for conception...", where I relate it to my understanding of information as "energy transfer that either crosses an energetic threshold, thereby changing (informing) a local structure, and thus registering information, or not. The 'form' of the local structure, typically embedded in a hierarchy of forms, provides the code-book for interpreting the information." For me this applies to 'form'-al hierarchies as general as computers or neural nets. There are so many details of specific hierarchies that I assumed the details don't matter that much, even though the Devil lives in them.

When you read my essay you can inform me as to whether I correctly discern a similarity in our view of reality, or whether I simply read too much into generalities without paying sufficient attention to details. As I said, we, the FQXI authors, will never agree on all the details, when dealing with a topic as broad as the current one.

I look forward to your comments,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Sir,

We understand your anguish at the direction taken by physics, as we have met many distinguished professors who felt like you. We also feel the same way. But then it is our duty to contribute whatever we can to rectify the system. The final outcome is not in our hands, though! In fact Dr. Kirakosyan wondered in our thread how we are fighting thousands of Professors.

We do not see mathematics as "the language of absolute space and absolute time". We consider mathematics as the science of accumulation and reduction of numbers, which is a characteristic of all substances that exist in space and time. SR begins with a wrong note of measuring lengths of moving objects. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.

The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Einstein precisely does the same while claiming the very opposite. In his June 30th, 1905 paper, he treats the clock at A as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative!

In response to the first query on our essay, we have given proof that the experiment that is said to have proved time dilation is a hoax. The GPS result can be attributed to density variation between outer space and the Earth's atmosphere that changes the refractive index leading to slowing down of light. The same is true for particle accelerator experiments that are contained in high flux magnetic tubes. When driving a car, the speedometer reading and the actual kilometer readings do not match. It is always slower due to air friction. In the thread of Dr. Reed and many others, we have proved conclusively without contradiction that equivalence principle is wrong description of reality.

Division by zero is not infinity. Division of two numbers a and b is the reduction of dividend a by the divisor b or taking the ratio a/b to get the result (quotient). Cutting or separating an object into two or more parts is also called division. It is the inverse operation of multiplication. If: a x b = c, then a can be recovered as a = c/b as long as b ≠ 0. Division by zero is the operation of taking the quotient of any number c and 0, i.e., c/0. The uniqueness of division breaks down when dividing by b = 0, since the product a x 0 = 0 is the same for any value of a. Hence a cannot be recovered by inverting the process of multiplication (a = c/b). Zero is the only number with this property and, as a result, division by zero is undefined for real numbers and can produce a fatal condition called a "division by zero error" in computer programs. Even in fields other than the real numbers, division by zero is never allowed.

Now let us evaluate (1+1/n)^n for any number n. As n increases, 1/n reduces. For very large values of n, 1/n becomes almost negligible. Thus, for all practical purposes, (1+1/n) = 1. Since any power of 1 is also 1, the result is unchanged for any value of n. This position holds when n is very small and is negligible. Because in that case we can treat it as zero and any number raised to the power of zero is unity. There is a fatal flaw in this argument, because n may approach ∞ or 0, but it never "becomes" ∞ or 0.

On the other hand, whatever be the value of 1/n, it will always be more than zero, even for large values of n. Hence, (1+1/n) will always be greater than 1. When a number greater than zero is raised to increasing powers, the result becomes larger and larger. Since (1+1/n) will always be greater than 1, for very large values of n, the result of (1+1/n)^n will also be ever bigger. But what happens when n is very small and comparable to zero? This leads to the problem of "division by zero". The contradicting result shown above was sought to be resolved by the concept of limit, which is at the heart of calculus. The generally accepted concept of limit led to the result: as n approaches 0, 1/n approaches ∞. Since that created all problems, let us examine this aspect closely.

Now, let us take a different example: an = (2n^2 +1) / (3n + 4). Here n^2 represents a two dimensional object, which represents area or a graph. Areas or graphs are nothing but a set of continuous points in two dimensions. Thus, it is a field that vary smoothly without breaks or jumps and cannot propagate in true vacuum. Unlike a particle, it is not discrete, but continuous. For n = 1,2,3,...., the value of an diverges as 3/7, 9/10, 19/13, ...... For every value of n, the value for n+1 grows bigger than the earlier rate of divergence. This is because the term n2 in the numerator grows at a faster rate than the denominator. This is not done in physical accumulation or reduction. In division, the quotient always increases or decreases at a fixed rate in proportion to the changes in either the dividend or the divisor or both.

For example, 40/5 = 8 and 40/4 = 10. The ratio of change of the quotient from 8 to 10 is the same as the inverse of the ratio of change of the divisor from 5 to 4. But in the case of our example: an = (2n^2 +1) / (3n + 4), the ratio of change from n = 2 to n = 3 is from 9/10 to 19/13, which is different from 2/3 or 3/2. Thus, the statement:

limn→∞ an = {(2n^2 +1) / (3n + 4)} → ∞,

is neither mathematically correct (as the values for n+1 is always greater than that of n and never a fixed ratio n/n+1) nor can it be applied to discrete particles (since it is indeterminate). According to relativity, wherever speed comparable to light is involved, like that of a free electron or photon, the Lorentz factors invariably comes in to limit the output. There is always length, mass or time correction. But there is no such correcting or limiting factor in the above example. Thus, the present concept of limit violates the principle of relativistic invariance for high velocities and cannot be used in physics.

The problem of division by zero that has led to "renormalization" because the result is supposed to be infinity is erroneous and contrary to mathematical principles. If you divide 20 by 5, then what you actually do is take out bunches of 5 from the lot of 20. When the lot becomes empty or the remainder is below 5, so that it cannot be considered a bunch and taken away further, the number of bunches of 5 are counted. That gives the result of division as 4. In case of division by zero, you take out bunches of zero. At no stage the lot becomes zero or less than zero. Thus, the operation is not complete and result of division cannot be known, just like while dividing 20 by 5, you cannot start counting the result after taking away three bunches. Conclusion: division by zero leaves the number unchanged.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Zoran Mijatovic:

When you said "time" is a function of space, in my opinion you are very close of reality. I would said that "time" is a function of the "field". You would realize why I don't make more comments on your essay. So just not to loose 30 or 60 minutes reading my essay "The deep nature of reality" I sent you a summary of it.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English) "Hawking, A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor