Software Cosmos by Hugh Matlock

Hi Vladimir,

I went through your Beautiful Universe Theory web page briefly, and what I saw was lovely, and I think, generally consonant with my own views. After the contest I will go back and study it in detail, but it appears to be consistent with a computational approach that defines an "architectural layer" for the physical world. In other words, your "nodes" are the "pixels" in a simulated world such as I describe. However, there may be a philosophical difference in our views, as I think the simulation paradigm can reach below the material level of reality.

Complex hardware and software systems are usually layered, with each layer interface defined by an "architectural contract" that sets the rules that a lower layer must implement, and that an upper layer can depend on. Upper layers have little information on how lower layers operate (upper layers know only the architectural contract, not the implementation details). Yet upper layers are completely dependent on the lower layers for their operations.

Lower layers, by contrast, are informed when upper layers do something. They are responsible for carrying out the orders of the upper layers, and so they need to know what is ordered, if not why.

We can use the word "animate" to refer to the operation of a lower layer that provides the operations in support a higher layer of computation. In this sense, physical computers "animate" a virtual world like Second Life. They provide all the calculations that move things around in that world. The "architectural contract" here are the laws of physics for Second Life.

As regards our physical world, the conventional view is that Matter is the foundation, and that Life and later, Mind emerges from that substrate. In other words, Matter animates Life and Life animates Mind.

I would suggest, rather, that Life animates Matter instead of Matter animating Life. Likewise, I think that Mind animates Life and Spirit animates Mind. Defining what these intuitions mean mathematically is a research project, but posing the question in terms of software design allows us to take a new approach to an old philosophical question.

Hugh

Hi Manuel,

I have not voted on any essays yet. My planned procedure is to read as many as I can, then rank them and allow myself (say) one 10, two 9s, three 8s, and so on. Is there a way to tell what rating other community members have given you?

Hugh

Hi Antony,

Thanks so much for your comments. You wrote:

> I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.

I very much agree with you, in cosmology particularily we need generalists and philosophers as well as theoretical specialists. Otherwise I think it can be difficult for specialists to tell the difference between anomalies that are part of the normal unknowns of science and those that indicate that the foundational assumptions of a given approach must be wrong.

> In my essay you might like the Fibonacci approach. You mentioned Software and Hardware - maybe the Fibonacci sequence is the firmware.....?

Yes, I think something like that is happening. A large scale software system is divided into layers, with architectural boundaries defined by interfaces. Below each boundary is the implementation of the interface, and above the users of it.

To make best sense of the cosmos, I think that we must place the layers as follows: Mind is below (and animates) Life which is below (and animates) Matter. It is in the definition of the Life layer that the Fibonacci sequence plays an important role, and it is this layer which is the foundation for, not only Life, but music and art as well. These pre-exist and form the foundation for the material world.

> Anyway, well done for producing what I consider to be one of the best essays in the contest. Top marks from me!

Thanks again!

Hugh

Hi Peter,

(It appears that the FQXI database has been reset, so I will add my comments again)

> As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections.

I have commented on your essay over on your blog. I think that Michel Planat (see below) has drawn an important connection by pointing out that the Hopf fibration links my S3 implicate space and your Intelligent qubit to his work on quantum contextuality.

> Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue.

I will have a look at your previous essays after the contest, as I like your approach to this. I can imagine that there are several connections.

Hugh

Hi Sreenath,

(It appears that the FQXI database has been reset, and my comment disappeared; so I will add it again.)

You wrote:

> This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate.

We might have somewhat different interpretations, but it could depend on what we understand by It and Bit. I think of "It" as representing measurable physical objects, and "Bit" could be any kind of information. In my simulated computational cosmos, Bit can appear in many guises. The way mind enters the picture I will describe below.

> Representation of relationship between implicate and explicate on the basis of digital physics constitutes the next task of your article.

Yes, I would like to construct digital algorithms that perform this transformation, in order to make the simulation idea more compelling. Several of the other essays have given me ideas for this.

> 7 sphere may be mathematically true but not so physically as long as it is made visualizable in the same way as S3 sphere.

If you are comfortable imagining the S3 sphere, here is a way to construct an S7 sphere: Consider a "mother" S3 sphere, where each point is the center of a "daughter" S3 sphere (i.e. daughters initially have radius 0). Now let the radius of the mother sphere decrease, and have the radius of each daughter sphere increase to compensate, so the sum of mother's radius daughters' radius is constant.

> Your final conclusion, It from Bit comes as no surprise when you say "the explicate world of It arises from the implicate world of Bit" and you have given, like me, primary importance to mind when you say, "the content of that implicate information world comes from consciousness".

Yes, my idea is that we can describe Mind as a layer of the software architecture below the material layer. The important insight (not included in the essay) is that lower layers of an architecture are in some ways more aware of what is happening than upper layers. This is because each layer is constrained by the layer interface contract and cannot observe what the implementing layers are doing, only their effects (which seem automatic within the layer).

In software terms, the physical laws are an interface contract for an architectural layer. So material objects are constrained to obey physical laws without having any way to examine how or why the laws work.

The conventional materialist view is that Mind is somehow emergent from Matter, which is taken as the "ground of being", i.e. Mind is layered above Matter. But if you construct a "mind" above the material layer you create a philosophical zombie, whereas if you locate Mind below the material physical layer you find that a mind has attributes that we associate with conscious awareness. I hope to clarify the distinction between these different conceptions of Mind by reference to software architecture. I believe it is possible philosophically to give an account of Mind once you have a story of how the physical world might arise from a software simulation, which is what the essay tries to provide.

> Thanks for presenting such an interesting essay in an elegant and consistent manner.

You are most welcome!

Hugh

Hi Michel,

(It appears that the FQXI database as been reset, as my comments have disappeared. I will add it back in.)

You wrote:

> Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.

I am delighted that you appreciate it.

> The S3 sphere has several clothes

Yes, it is quite remarkable how many starring roles S3 has, once you start looking for it. The Hopf fibration is a kind of co-star, whose dance with S3 we are just beginning to appreciate. I notice that you have written about the Black Hole/qubit correspondence. I am very interested in looking at this after the contest. Perhaps the ideas of software architecture can provide a third avenue for understanding.

> Many Dessins d'enfants (those of genus 0) arise from S2 (say) with three singular points 0,1 and infty. The idea would be to lift them to S3, through the inverse Hopf map, endowed with three rigidified circles corresponding to aforementioned singular points.

I think your idea is well worth pursuing, and will put a comment on your blog.

> I wonder is such a picture was ever imagined.

One person who might have imagined this is Lou Kauffman, who studies a trefoil knot called Mereon in the quantum context. Tony Smith has thought about the Hopf Fibration in the context of his own theory, but I don't think he brought in the Dessins d'Enfants.

> This would be an instance of your implicate to explicate projection, I suspect.

Yes. And while the implicate-explicate projection may be of use to you in studying the quantum scale, your Dessin's d'Enfants may be of use to me at larger scales, appearing as the grid structures I study. At the Earth scale, the Hopf fibration from S3 may help explain why calculations of grid structure must be done using an idealized 2-sphere (i.e. taking into account only latitude and longitude of highpoints, not absolute altitude) whereas the actual Earth is not perfectly spherical.

Thank you so much for your comments! They have triggered several useful thoughts.

Hugh

Hi Don,

(It appears the FQXI database has been reset as recent comments have disappeared. I will add mine back in.)

> in the best Don Quixote fashion you are (going to model reality) modeling reality

Yes, exactly.

> Once you have your models in place, try out lambda-hopping as part of your implicit model.

Computer science has a concept of delayed evaluation that is similar to your lambda-hopping. This plays into the adaptive mesh refinement that I mention in the essay. But there is also functional programming which I plan to consider as a result of reading about lambda-hopping.

> What can you say to Don Quixote but: God be with you!

As one Don to another: keep on tilting on!

Hugh

I had saved a copy of your response. Here it is:

--------------------------------

Dear Hughes,

I boosted your essay as promised.

"Black Hole/qubit correspondence" you could enter the team if you like.

"Mereon"

Yes, excellent, and it is a good way to see where the knots enter the game.

"Hopf fibrations" we are fully phase-locked.

Your feedback goes even beyond I could anticipate.

I will also answer your questions on my blog.

Good luck,

Michel

Hi Peter,

> As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections.

I have commented on your essay over on your blog. I think that Michel Planat (see below) has drawn an important connection by pointing out that the Hopf fibration links my S3 implicate space and your Intelligent qubit to his work on quantum contextuality.

> Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue.

I will have a look at your previous essays after the contest, as I like your approach to this. I can imagine that there are several connections.

Hugh

Hi Sreenath,

You wrote:

> This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate.

We might have somewhat different interpretations, but it could depend on what we understand by It and Bit. I think of "It" as representing measurable physical objects, and "Bit" could be any kind of information. In my simulated computational cosmos, Bit can appear in many guises. The way mind enters the picture I will describe below.

> Representation of relationship between implicate and explicate on the basis of digital physics constitutes the next task of your article.

Yes, I would like to construct digital algorithms that perform this transformation, in order to make the simulation idea more compelling. Several of the other essays have given me ideas for this.

> 7 sphere may be mathematically true but not so physically as long as it is made visualizable in the same way as S3 sphere.

If you are comfortable imagining the S3 sphere, here is a way to construct an S7 sphere: Consider a "mother" S3 sphere, where each point is the center of a "daughter" S3 sphere (i.e. daughters initially have radius 0). Now let the radius of the mother sphere decrease, and have the radius of each daughter sphere increase to compensate, so the sum of mother's radius daughters' radius is constant.

> Your final conclusion, It from Bit comes as no surprise when you say "the explicate world of It arises from the implicate world of Bit" and you have given, like me, primary importance to mind when you say, "the content of that implicate information world comes from consciousness".

Yes, my idea is that we can describe Mind as a layer of the software architecture below the material layer. The important insight (not included in the essay) is that lower layers of an architecture are in some ways more aware of what is happening than upper layers. This is because each layer is constrained by the layer interface contract and cannot observe what the implementing layers are doing, only their effects (which seem automatic within the layer).

In software terms, the physical laws are an interface contract for an architectural layer. So material objects are constrained to obey physical laws without having any way to examine how or why the laws work.

The conventional materialist view is that Mind is somehow emergent from Matter, which is taken as the "ground of being", i.e. Mind is layered above Matter. But if you construct a "mind" above the material layer you create a philosophical zombie, whereas if you locate Mind below the material physical layer you find that a mind has attributes that we associate with conscious awareness. I hope to clarify the distinction between these different conceptions of Mind by reference to software architecture. I believe it is possible philosophically to give an account of Mind once you have a story of how the physical world might arise from a software simulation, which is what the essay tries to provide.

> Thanks for presenting such an interesting essay in an elegant and consistent manner.

You are most welcome!

Hugh

Hi Michel,

You wrote:

> Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.

I am delighted that you appreciate it.

> The S3 sphere has several clothes

Yes, it is quite remarkable how many starring roles S3 has, once you start looking for it. The Hopf fibration is a kind of co-star, whose dance with S3 we are just beginning to appreciate. I notice that you have written about the Black Hole/qubit correspondence. I am very interested in looking at this after the contest. Perhaps the ideas of software architecture can provide a third avenue for understanding this correspondence.

> Many Dessins d'enfants (those of genus 0) arise from S2 (say) with three singular points 0,1 and infty. The idea would be to lift them to S3, through the inverse Hopf map, endowed with three rigidified circles corresponding to aforementioned singular points.

I think your idea is well worth pursuing, and have put a comment on your blog.

> I wonder is such a picture was ever imagined.

One person who might have imagined this is Lou Kauffmann, who studies a trefoil knot called Mereon in the quantum context. Tony Smith has thought about the Hopf Fibration in the context of his own theory, but I don't think he brought in the Dessins d'Enfants.

> This would be an instance of your implicate to explicate projection, I suspect.

Yes. And while the implicate-explicate projection may be of use to you in studying the quantum scale, your Dessins d'Enfants may be of use to me at larger scales, appearing as the grid structures I study. At the Earth scale, the Hopf fibration from S3 may help explain why calculations of grid structure must be done using an idealized 2-sphere (i.e. taking into account only latitude and longitude of highpoints, not absolute altitude) whereas the actual Earth is not perfectly spherical.

Thank you so much for your comments! They have triggered several useful thoughts.

Hugh