Essay Abstract

Despite the success of modern physics in formulating mathematical theories that can predict the outcome of quantum-scale experiments, the physical interpretations of these theories remain controversial. In this manuscript, we propose a new interpretation of existence that we call physical relativism. Under physical relativism, the difference between mathematical existence and physical existence is clarified, and Wheeler's `it from bit' viewpoint can be objectively evaluated. In addition, physical relativism provides a simple answer to the question of why the universe exists at all, and permits us to derive the maximally biophilic principle, a generalization of the anthropic principle that ascribes high prior likelihood to the observation of a universe with simple physical laws supporting the overall concepts of time, space and the emergent evolution of life.

Author Bio

Stuart Heinrich received his Ph.D. from North Carolina State University in computer vision. He is interested in studying questions of existence, cosmology, evolution and consciousness through computer simulation.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Stuart,

I think that you have groundbreaking views on the 'it from bit"' problem. This is very interesting to introduce the concept of self-awareness as you do in comparison to Tegmark's approach, that is insufficient (in you view and mine as well). As I am very much interested in the miraculous efficiency of mathematics for mimicking physical problems, I have to learn from your essay and the related references.

Best wishes,

Michel

    Dear Michel,

    Thank you for reading my contribution. I am pleased that you found my perspectives interesting and potentially groundbreaking. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask for clarification.

    Cheers,

    Stuart

    Stuart,

    Good essay. I have much sympathy for what you say. Two comments are:

    1. If I understand what you're saying about "the distinction between a real universe and an abstract mathematically defined universe is merely a point of perspective", I totally agree and have been arguing something similar for a long time. In my thinking, I don't distinguish between "physical" objects and "abstract" objects. To me, they're both just different names for existent entities existing outside the brain and inside the brain, respectively. In my current FQXi essay, I argue that we should argue less about whether to call the fundamental building block of existence an it or a bit and just accept that it's an existent entity of some kind and go from there. Also, from my old website at:

    "Furthermore, relative to one another,two ideas, concepts, equations or bits of information would appear to be as real to each other as two "real world" particles appear to each other. Therefore, given a set of equations or bits of information, who's to say that these aren't equivalent to a set of "real world" particles?

    http://www.geocities.ws/roger846/theory.3.html

    Something similar, but having updated wording, is at my current website at

    sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite (3rd link)

    This idea has been around a long time. The oldest reference I could find for it is by a guy called I.V. Volovich, who wrote a paper in 1987 called "Number theory as the ultimate physical theory".

    2. You mention on page 3:

    "It will never be resolved so long as we continue to restrict our thinking to an objective explanation

    of existence, because fundamentally there is no way to prove something from nothing, and any starting point other than nothing is not truly objective. Therefore, we find it logical to consider this paradox as an [informal] proof by contradiction that the universe is not objectively real...then the only kind of truth we are left with is truth in the constructivist [53] sense, and the only kind of existence would be mathematical existence".

    I like your reasoning but think that there's one more way to answer the "something" versus "nothing" question starting from "nothing". In true "nothingness", there would be no mechanism present to convert this "nothingness" into the "something" that we see around us and that we consider to be different than "nothing". But, because there is "something" now, this must mean that "something" and "nothing" are one and the same thing. That is, our traditional definition of the word "nothing" as being the lack of all existent entities is incorrect and what we currently call "nothing" can be seen, if looked at from a different perspective, to be an existent entity, or "something". If anyone's interested, I go into more detail on this in my analog versus digital FQXi essay entry and at my website.

    Anyways, I don't mean my comments to distract from my view that yours is a very good essay. Thanks!

    Roger

      Roger,

      Thank you for your comments and positive assessment. After reading the article on your homepage I would say that I have come to conclude your argument is basically correct, although I find your use of the word "idea" a bit misleading...because an idea is typically used to refer to descriptions that exist in the mind of an observer, whereas you use this to describe things without the presence of an observer. In my article I use the concept of formal axiomatic systems to describe things without observers. Of course, one might argue that my word choice is not much better, because a formal system typically requires a person to formalize it. I think ultimately that our language simply does not contain words sufficient to accurately describe this concept of physical relativism.

      On the second point: I think you are actually making the same point that I argued in my paper. Your conclusion,

      "But, because there is "something" now, this must mean that "something" and "nothing" are one and the same thing."

      is confusing because we define the words something and nothing to be mutually exclusive in English. Nonetheless it seems we are both trying to argue the same point...the facts are:

      1) we observe "something" thus we must come up with a way to explain it

      2) if something is objectively true it must be provable

      3) the only objective starting point is nothingness

      2) we cannot derive "something" from "nothing".

      4) Therefore, we cannot say that we objectively exist...we must conclude that that "something" we observe is "objectively nothingness".

      ...which implies that the "something" we observe exists not in an objective sense but rather in a relative sense (relative to some axioms). You see, we are making the same argument, the only difference is that I am using the words "relative" and "objective" to prevent confusion.

      Again, thanks for your feedback

      Regards,

      Stuart

      Stuart,

      Great minds think alike! :-)

      I agree that language and peoples' preconceptions of what words mean is a a real roadblock to getting people to understand what we're talking about. I use quotes a lot to try and indicate that that word may have a different meaning than what is traditional.

      What I've come to is that it's a losing task to try and get people beyond the language blocks in order to see the value in our arguments. Instead, in my own thinking, I'm trying to use these ideas to try and build a model of the universe and eventually make testable predictions (some initial ideas are at my FQXi essay and at my website if you're interested). The only way we'll ever be able to get somewhere with our arguments is by coming up with hard evidence. I've found that to be true at work, too. Needless to say, I've got a ways to go before I can make any of those testable predictions :-) But, it gives me a hobby to work on at night and keeps me off the streets!

      Anyways, thanks for the reply, and good luck!

      Roger

      When there exist two theories that both describe the observed data equally well, and yet these theories are not identical in all their predictions, a situation that complies with one theory but not the other leads to an experiment that can be performed that would reject one theory and leave the other standing.

      If any consistent formal system is equally valid, then this interpretation cannot be used to invalidate any potential theories of physics that cannot by themselves be shown to be inconsistent. Therefore I do not think that it is possible to ever have a specific experiment to test this out.

      However, as I argue in my paper, any theory of physics that adheres to the idea that there is a single axiomatic system describing reality is subject to contradiction and hence must be false...thus, I would argue that the simple observation of reality itself __IS__ the experiment which validates what I call physical relativism and rejects the other theories about existence.

      My effort has been to formalize the logic of the argument showing that any other theory is inconsistent. Although I think that the natural language version is sound, it would be easier for formalists to accept if it were somehow translated and written into a mathematical language...for example, in the same form that Godel's incompleteness theories were translated. This is what I inspire to show.

      Dear Stuart,

      Thank you for presenting a nice essay which provoke thinking.

      See for example, on your words "formal axiomatic systems to describe things without observers" is different from "descriptions or things without the presence of an observer" and observer is not required to know what is happening.

      I say I observe the universe thro my senses, and on my death the universe also eases the existence for me. What I do is, that I will communicate with another human about my picture of the universe and its existence.

      How you propose to do all these without observer?

      .....

      I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

      I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

      Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

      Best

      =snp

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

      Pdf download:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

      Part of abstract:

      - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

      Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

      A

      Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

      ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

      . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

      B.

      Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

      Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

      C

      Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

      "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

      1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

      2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

      3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

      4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

      D

      Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

      It from bit - where are bit come from?

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

      ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

      Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

      E

      Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

      .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

      I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

      Stuart,

      I found your statement, "Physical existence may be taken as the subset of reality that defines structures in space-time." to be relative to the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded.

      Please review my essay to confirm if my findings confirm your framework of 'Physical relativism'. I believe my findings may have provided the experimental validation of your premise, see:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

      Best wishes,

      Manuel

        Manuel,

        Thank you for reading my essay, but I am afraid you must have misunderstood that statement. According to physical relativism, that axioms/rules of the formal system that defines an observer are perceived as reality by that observer. However, without knowing more about the constraints necessary to derive self-awareness, we must accept the possibility that self-awareness can be derived in an axiomatic system that does not also define the familiar notion of space-time; for example, a reality might contain more than 1 time dimension, or no time dimension at all, or perhaps no spatial dimensions, as long as complexity is still representable. Therefore, the purpose of this statement was to clarify that we should not equate "reality" with the "physical world" when talking about the realities of other potential self-aware observers in different realities, which may not have a concept of space-time.

        As explained in the conclusion, physical relativism is NOT a theory of physics, it does not make ANY testable predictions, and it would be fundamentally impossible to derive any experiment that validates the proposed interpretation of physical relativism, because physical relativism is compatible with any logically consistent theory of physics. Rather, physical relativism is to be believed because it is required for logical consistency in describing the situation of a self-aware observer regardless of the laws of physics.

        I will read your paper though when I get a chance.

        Cheers,

        Stuart

        Dear Stuart,

        I agree that it is valid to consider arguments based on consistency alone, although it is an open question how much relevance this has for physical reality. I do believe that self consistency is the prime determinant of reality. For arguments based on consistency that lead to the conclusion that reality is based on "one substance", I recommend Marcel LaBel's 2009 FQXi essay.

        You state that "the fact that our self-aware thoughts are capable of controlling our physical bodies is proof that our thoughts are an inextricable part of the physics that define our universe."

        You explore the implications of a universe represented by a formal system. I explore such a universe represented by the simplest formal system, one that satisfies the conditions stated in the above paragraphs.

        Self-awareness is the key to both of our essays. I invite you to read my essay and welcome your comments. We both are interested in evolution and consciousness.

        Thanks again for a very stimulating essay.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dr. Heinrich,

        I found your essay to be exceptionally well organized and meticulously argued.

        As a wrinkled up old realist, may I add a comment? As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, one real unique Universe is eternally occurring, once.

        Unfortunately, not one philosopher or scientist has the foggiest notion of what the words "unique" and "once" actually mean. For instance, you mentioned Brian Greene's remark, "If logic alone somehow required the universe to exist and be governed by a unique set of laws with unique ingredients, then perhaps we'd have a convincing story." Real unique cannot be abstractly logical. Real unique can exist, once. Real unique is not abstractly governable. Real unique is not abstractly lawful.

        There is nothing more convincing than the fact that each snowflake is unique as is each strand of DNA and each fingerprint. The real Universe cannot consist of unique and common matter. Everything in the real Universe is unique, once.

        Let us Wheeler your comparative universes.

        Is the universe real? Yes.

        Is the abstract universe real? No.

        There is a unique distinction between abstract perception and pragmatic occurring.

        Stuart,

        If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

        Jim

        18 days later

        Dear Stuart,

        I like what you say about abstract Universe, reality and mathematics. Also your approach of Physical Relativity is extremely fundamental - which is exactly what this essay needs, yet many shy away from! You haven't so great work!

        I've worked on a theory that partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony, so again something you have looked at well. Top marks from me - you deserve good ratings!

        Please take a look at my essay if you get chance.

        Best wishes,

        Antony

        8 days later

        Stuart,

        Your description of Physical Relativism is very close to the fundamental model I use in my essay. Your derivation has helped and clarified my thinking process about the underlying truths it contains. Thank you for that very well written and structured analysis. In particular I identify commonality on;

        Causality with imperfect 'evolution'. A clear distinction between maths and nature (as Godel). Apparent infinite regression (I've identified a limit). A real physical mechanism explaining detection, 'observation' and measurements.

        I discuss all these and more, and actually apply a 3d ontology constructed from them, showing it's power to resolve the EPR paradox. I'd very much like to you read (and score!) my essay and comment on the model and resolution presented, complete with empirical foundations.

        I find no explanation for your low score and have no compunction in giving it a well earned top mark. Very well done in all respects.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        4 days later

        Dear Stuart,

        You have made a very brave and innovative effort to explain the current fundamental philosophical problems arising as a result of difficulties in the physical interpretations of the fundamental theories of physics. For this the invention of the concept of physical relativism is the central point. With historical back ground, you have shown how highly advanced theories including M-Theory cannot account for the age old problems like the existence of universe and the like. Your interpretation of the anthropic principle to the existence of the universe and as well as to that of Life is interesting. It is good to note that you have not used your concept of physical relativism as merely a fundamental concept but have derived it mathematically thus substantiating your claim to have solved the above problems logically. This point you have made clear when you say "-physical relativism can also be derived from the simple assumption that the

        Universe is represented by a formal system". Your reference to Gödel's incompleteness theorem is noteworthy. While concluding you have made your point of view on physical relativism clear; "the fundamental conclusions of physical relativism are that self-aware observers can exist in axiomatic systems without objective manifestation and that the distinction between a real universe and an abstract mathematically defined universe is merely a point of perspective".

        Thank you for your elegantly argued article based on solid proof.

        Best,

        Sreenath

        Write a Reply...