Fundamental Theory of Reality, “Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally” by adel hassan sadeq

Thanks philip, I have rated your essay fairly high. I will reply in detail after I have prepare some material to show more convincing simulations plus the link to your theory using the concepts of random matrices, random walks on necklace and such. As a matter of fact I think I am grabbing the first thread of string theory in my system by comparing it to yours. More later, and thanks again.

P.S. I still hope you look at those programs IF you get the time.

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for reading my essay, I have left you a comment in your thread. As to Mathematics, the philosophers of the field have debated the issue of the foundation of math for a very long time. One of the main philosophers Putnam concluded that mathematics does not have foundation and does not need one. I think many modern ones are of the same mind. But ok, we can debate to all eternity as to what is math, but at least OUR reality is much better understood.

Adel

Hi Vladimir,

I will comment about your theory in your thread. But From my point of view there is not much to elaborate about mathematics. Even if we find out what mathematics is or its nature that will not do anything to the physics, if my theory is correct.

So from my theory, physics is just a result of a particular mathematical structure which implies that mathematics is platonic. In another word math has the proof of the existence of reality and reality is the proof of the platonic existence of math. Now that is profound.

Adel

Hi Hoang,

I don't know what is the the level of your education, but in university and beyond we learn to only understand words in the context of the problem at hand. the words themselves don't have absolute meaning, it depends how you use them. And in science we use language just like other cultures, they have their own way of saying things and people usually engaged in science sort of know how to decode others words. It is like if you joke in your home country and gets translated it might actually sound dumb to me.

Also, that is why we hold mathematics in high regards, we don't use words so much just symbols and people allover the world can understand it (what we actually mean by them). On the other hand you see in philosophy people use very heavy loaded words trying to be concise in the thought transmission because of the requirement of clear arguments and it is very hard to do with ordinary words. But for someone who has no experience in philosophy it does sound "GREEK".

In short, it is the content of the subject and how we understand that is important in science.However you want to say it the content is important. So don't get hung up on words and look to the content.

Adel

Hi Sergio,

Thank you for coming back, and the good rating.

"What is the difference between 1B and 2?"

Maybe I was not clear enough, in case 1B the random lines li are constrained by the length L of the main line, so they can go outside but not far. In the case of 2 the lines can go to the other particles which are even at the end of the universe.

So the theory inherently is an "action at distance",but that does not happen by choice for me it is automatic in the system. I only do what is possible on the line. That is why I have mentioned that EPR paradox is trivial in my theory, which does reproduce a lot of QM. Moreover, the system also respects causality just like in standard physics. I will elaborate more once the system becomes more familiar to you and others.

Also, if you noticed I have not mentioned what happens in case of 1B, I am working on the interpretation of the results by doing a lot of simulations. Maybe you can discover it! the program is very easy to run. Tomorrow I will be adding more programs in my website, I will post the details.

"What do you mean with the notation "d0/d1"? is it the difference between sets?"

Please for this question refer to fig.6 in section 3 in the essay and detailed program description in my website also in section 3. d0 and d1 are basically the representation of the two interacting particles. Their length is really nothing but the Compton wavelength (= h_bar/mc, since h_bar=c like in natural units, the Compton wavelength for electron= 1/m=1/.0005465799=1822.8885 in u units approximately). I will talk more in detail later in my upcoming reply to Armin Shirazi)

http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm

I will be happy to answer more questions.Thanks again

Adel

Hi Hoang,

All the people who submitted their essays are the kind of people who like to think " out of the box", naturally some will be more successful than others. Also, I think you have the wrong impression about higher education. I think in all fields and especially in science and particularly engineering(which is my field) we're always taught to think for ourselves and when we go to do Masters or PHD you are on your own basically, so you have to be innovative and original. Again, some will be very good and some will be less.

Being innovative is synonymous with engineering, it is what the field is about. All the good things you see in life in modern age is done by such people.

Sure standard scientific methods work and work well, that's what brought about modern life(you can also make good amount of money using such methods,tried and true as they say). But there is room for more adventurous people especially when they are equipped properly.

It is good that you want to know, but also it is not enough just to believe in something strongly ,you have to have the way to convince people. Either by arguments or math or whatever that makes sense to as much people as possible. My theory "reality is nothing but ...." may be correct 1000% but if I said that and stopped , what good is that statement? You do seem to have good ideas but your language and the way your framing them is making it hard for you to get them across.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

Adel

Hi Sreenath,

Thank you for reading the essay in a thoughtful manner. Sorry for the late reply, I was busy converting more C++ programs to JavaScript so that you and others can run it and see (also modify) the code and have a much better understanding. Since my system does not have equations as such or philosophical arguments, so the best way to learn it is by running the simulation.

I have always tinkered with ideas in math and engineering mostly, but I only read physics. Somehow, the idea of the relation of physics and math started brewing in my head for few years. One day sitting with my friends and everybody was complaining about the world and life, so to ease the discussion I just throw a one liner and said that reality was nothing but some math. So everybody laughed their head off and walked out shaking their head.

I was very surprised of the words that came out of my mouth, I said to myself, aha, this is what was in my head but I could not express till that moment. Having a bit of free time I started thinking what could this mathematical structure will look like and how could it arise. To be honest I was really only thinking of the possibility of creating a very crude universe like system just for my amusement.

After thinking about what could be happening on the line, it just seemed so natural to implement the idea using computer program. It is not like I said, here, I am going to write a program to simulate our reality using computer. I was so shocked (but deep down not surprised) when I saw the sin^2, I was expecting some kind fractal or some similar stuff, but never ever the actual physics of our reality.

I tell you this long story because I think it makes it much easier to understand my replies to your comments.

The words "mathematical structure" are used both in general sense and has more strict mathematical meaning. It is used loosely to refer to any mathematical like systems like a triangle or a circle. And in formal way as in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_structure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_structure

Of course I am using more in the general sense just like Dr. Tegmark's MUH.

I will have to read you essay more carefully to see the relation of math and physics in your idea. But I think already in mine the reason for the "effectiveness of math "is much clearer. You can see how classical physics and standard quantum physics have their origin in my system which is purely mathematical and so the classical theories are either effective theories (classical physics) or a "look alike" (quantum physics). There is a famous quote by Feynman in regards to Schrodinger Equation (which is known to be a fantastic guess by him) just popping out of Schrodinger's head, meaning there appears no basis to it other than it works. My system shows the origin of the equation, and it is clear how the math relate. Moreover, with my system I do not attempt to derive anything. The nature of the system from its inception has been to see what is possible to do on the line AND THEN see if I can interpret the results to match some known physics. I have not thought, ok, now I shall derive the natural constants, no. I just look at possible results and see if I can make any sense of them that is all.

As far as a system that solves all intellectual problems in one system, I think that is a very ambitious and unrealistic goal, but contemplating such issues does add to our knowledge . Many of the essays in the contest are misguided in my opinion because they tackle cosmological problems that have very scarce data, while we have these giant colliders and we are struggling with basic issues in particle physics. I believe we must solve the fundamental problems first before tackling more complicated ones. Anyway, the problem of existence is by far more mysterious, enigmatic and psychologically important that the issue of biology and consciousness. Because the later do have a very good chance being explained by the former but not the other way around.

As I said in my essay gravity is still under research. It is so difficult to simulate even for very short distances the numbers fluctuate so much it is very hard to make sense out of them, but I think there is hope. Maybe another two weeks or so I might be able to show more. The issue you raised about electron energy and the proton is interesting while the system does seem to follow standard physics but it seems that some surprises about the proton might be there. I am also working on that and it looks interestingly unconventional, but maybe the time is not right to disclose until further checks.

Hopefully by tomorrow I will read and rate your essay. Thanks again.

Adel

Hi Hoang,

First I want to apologize if I had offended you in any way. I certainly did not mean any disrespect. There is nothing personal between us and you have not insulted me, so I have no reason to insult you. I think you misunderstood my statements. I just meant when we learn complicated subjects in higher education we do have to say things properly to express the problems in a clear way, but also we don't spend all our time to choose the right words, The concepts are more important. I went to school in the west and my English was not that good(still it isn't) but I did good. Anyway, you took some statements personally but they were meant as an advice only. However, it is natural sometimes to state our opinions in strong terms in forums, that is part of the process.

Also, I said "All the people who submitted their essays are the kind of people who like to think out of the box". This is the highest compliment that you can give to people's intellect and that goes to you as a participant. As a non professional physicist I do rate self learning highly, as a matter of fact I have criticised some people with PHDs here in FQXI and elsewhere a lot for being "boring" with no imagination.

As to the issue of gravity, I understand its fundamentals as it is taught in school. I know what is known and what is unknown, as in Newton's theory, GR, Verlinde's gravity , QG and so on. In my essay I have not calculated anything related to gravity, all calculations are for Quantum Mechanical systems. I only talked briefly about it(last section), but I hope I will have some calculation soon.

Thank you again.

Adel