I just wanted to let you know that Software Cosmos is on my Radar..
Best,
Jonathan
Software Cosmos by Hugh Matlock
Hugh,
You asked, "Is there a way to tell what rating other community members have given you?"
Yes and No. What I have found out so far is that as your rating and the number times it has been rated increases, the higher the rating needs to be in order increase someone's rating. However, this rating system is designed for entrants to cut throat each other by rating each other low instead of preventing such underhanded activity. What I find unfortunate about this system is that it makes science look petty and opinionated instead of being based on objectivity based on empirical standards.
If you feel that you cannot return my high rating of your essay (you can email me for what that was - msm@physicsofdestiny.com), then I humbly ask that you do not rate it at all. I like to keep thing positive. So the way I see it, no harm - no foul.
Best wishes,
Manuel
Dear Hugh,
The whole theme of your wonderful essay is based on differentiating between two states of human 'cognition', implicate and explicate; where implicate represents independent 'reality' and explicate represents information from implicate. So information conveys the message about implicate to the mind and mind grasps it as explicate. 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. Representation of relationship between implicate and explicate on the basis of digital physics constitutes the next task of your article. You have made your essay a readable one by quoting the interesting aphorisms of well-known physicists. The figure of S3 hyper sphere is too good to grasp the essence behind it. But following Joy Christian, when you say S3 hyper sphere follows from parallelized 7-sphere you are not clear because we can visualize the figure of S3 sphere but not so that of 7 sphere. 7 sphere may be mathematically true but not so physically as long as it is made visualizable in the same way as S3 sphere. This was also the objection raised by me in Christian's FQXI blog the previous year.
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".
Thanks for presenting such an interesting essay in an elegant and consistent manner. I have answered to your queries on my essay in my thread.
Best wishes,
Sreenath
Dear Hugh,
I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies.
Dynamic Universe model is the model I formulated with God's grace.
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/
It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.
I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.
Now in this context, can we create material from information...?
You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
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
Dear Hugh,
Thank you for the copy of your lost message. Myself I did not save my response but I can give a more complete one soon. While my post (and all others from August 1 to 2) was lost when the administrator did the reset my rate may have been recorded because I am unable to vote again. This is something that has to checked.
I am giving you my personal email for extra discussions concerning a future cooperation.
michel.planat@femto-st.fr
Cheers,
Michel
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
Hi Don,
> 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
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
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.
If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.
I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.
There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.
Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.
This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.
Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.
This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.
However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.
Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.
Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.
The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.
Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.
This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.
Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.
You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.
With many thanks and best wishes,
John
jselye@gmail.com
Hi Hugh,
I found your essay to be deep, insightful, and very well-rounded. In particular, I was struck by your breadth of knowledge of physics combined with your reach outside the field. You are exceptionally articulate and well-rounded.
I also liked the quotes you interspersed throughout. Well done!
I believe you and John Wheeler are correct; we live in a participatory universe of which software is an integral part. For all of these reasons, I give you very high marks!
Best of luck to you!
Sincerely,
Ralph
Hi Ralph,
Thank you so much for your comment!
As the essay is currently in 36th place in the community rankings, I am not sure it will get to be considered in the next stage, but I hope so.
In any case, the contest has enabled me to learn about some very interesting ideas and has pushed forward my research in several directions. So it has been well worthwhile in any case.
Hugh
[deleted]
Dear Hugh,
I enjoyed reading your essay. I like how you used Bohm and Hiley's idea of implicate/explicate order. I consider that this idea should be explored in a more general ground that they originally did, and it should be viewed somehow independent. You seem to touch many recent results in building your viewpoint.
Best regards,
Dear Hugh,
Your essay makes extensive "connections" and references but let me focus on your concluding statement:
"The software cosmos picture answers the contest question in this way: "It from Bit and Bit from Us"....This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right and that the cosmos is inherently virtual [THE IT?], holographic [THE BIT?], and fractal [THE US?]."
In square brackets are my questions. They indicate how I can "picture" your elements TOGETHER. This is in so far as we MUST decide whether the "us" is in essence an "it" or "bit" or "both" or "neither".
I take it that the "us" is by definition a SCALE (i.e. fractal) of your implicate/explicate. That being the case I think yours is altogether a mighty useful picture worth my humble high rating.
Now you may try again and see how it fits with my own model, especially that part you quoted in my blog, then you will begin to see what I mean. I'll like you to leave a comment (and rating!)
All the bests,
Chidi