Regarding the smallest unit possessing agency..

Particles in your formulation are topological deformations, unified on the 7-sphere at the extreme microscale, and due to the unique properties of S7 and the connection with the octonions, the question naturally arises. Do 'atoms of space' possess the property of agency (in some rudimentary form)? How about sub-atomic particles, photons, or physical atoms? The octonions and their algebra possess a kind of dynamism that is procedurally evolutive in requiring sequential operations performed in stages. Do topological deformations operating in octonionic space therefore possess agency?

Alain Connes famously wrote "Noncommutative measure spaces evolve with time!" and goes on to say they have a 'God-given set of automorphisms,' in his NCG 2000 paper. But describing the octonions, which are non-associative as well as non-commutative; P.C. Kainen wrote that these two properties need not be seen as an impediment to proper usage in Physics - as they force progressive or sequential ordering in a way that allows ease of geometrization, and naturally models the dynamism observed in Physics. This would suggest that your STUFT theory and its variations - being connected with the natural properties of S3 and S7 - WOULD confer at least a minimal degree of agency to structure in the universe and make Object Physics a subset rather than a complement of Agent Physics. Do you concur?

Have Fun,

Jonathan

As I note in my essay;

When I asked Gerard 't Hooft, in a conversation at FFP10, 'what does the computing in your model? Are there perhaps atoms of space or 2-d patches at the Planck scale?' and his reply was that atoms of space are not needed, "because the laws of nature do the calculating for us."

How would you answer the same question, Michael?

Best Regards,

Jonathan

One further query..

I see sub-atomic particles as knots or congruences in octonionic space, in your STUFT theory, and proposed variations working from S15. Is this essentially correct, in terms of a visualization or conceptual model?

That's all for now..

Good luck.

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan

Yes, particles are topological defects in space in my geometric unification of physics (or Einstein's depending on your perspective as it's GR in 11D) but they are effectively bare particles, as in QT. Topology gives the boundary conditions ensuring the existence of these spatial defects, but finding a closed form solution is *proven* not to be possible. Adopting a perturbative approach starts with a bare topological defect of the form of a spinning Planck scale black hole. The combination of the topological conditions (from the S7) and the ergo-region of the rotating black hole (from space-time) gives the effect of the bare particle meeting the conditions of being an agent. This is conceptually just because the bare particle is effectively an unstable solution to the full 11D GR, but the combination of conditions prevents the full solution of a real particle working out in a straightforward fashion - all the weirdness of QT is the consequence.

As all objects are fundamentally composed of these topological defect particles, which strangely possess agent characteristics in bare form, in a sense all of physics (and the rest of science for that matter) lies within the domain of Agent Physics. The clear division into Object Physics and Agent Physics simply follows from attempting to model the patterns of energy and information in physical dynamics, i.e. from doing physics.

All the fundamental particles of the Standard Model, with correct charges (plus Weinberg angle and coupling constants), are produced by a topological mapping from S7 in the octonion space to a spatial S2, IF and ONLY IF the symmetry of the S7 has been broken so as to split the S7 into S3 fibre and S4 base-space. In extended GR the topological defects take the form of twists in the structure of the compactified S7 dimensions in going around the spatial S2 enclosing some point (or hole in space). In a pure geometric theory with only the structure of the fabric of space, a question like, "what does the computing (over the numbers of particles)?" can only have the fundamental answer, the fabric of space - which is synonymous with the laws of physics.

Best

Michael

Thank you Michael!

I appreciate the time taken for a detailed answer. And I am glad we are in agreement that Agent Physics is encompassing, or plays a dominant role in the structure of Physics as a whole. The best of luck!

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Dear Michael,

Re-reading your essay. I must confess very informative essay and very readable. Deserving of a very good rating. In your essay, you said: "The external input of energy into a subsystem of objects causes the configuration entropy to increase, giving a positive thermodynamic temperature". Given an input of energy into a sub-system of positive but abysmally low temperature, say 10-30oC, how will the resulting astronomical configuration entropy manifest?

I agree that Object Physics can explain "bit from it" and Agent Physics "it from bit". In my essay I identify the 'it' as an extended point, but I have difficulty identifying the Agent. You may wish to comment.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Hello Michael

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin

    Michael,

    Jonathan pointed me here. I thank him. From a heavy start it built steadily to a great work and then brilliant crescendo. I punched the air in finding I really wasn't going insane. Your thesis describes and beautifully rationalises a central and key part of my own, just viewed from a different angle and aspect. I term is as the 'Dirac Line' discerning mathematical approximation and the layered higher order 'sample spaces' of physical entities and interactions, the evolution of which is described by continuous curves

    I hope I also go on to show not only that you are correct but the power of this new paradigm, including resolving the EPR paradox without FTL. We're not alone, many other essays probe the same theme; Matlock, Gaisin, Planat, Dreyer, Perez, McGuire, Mijatovic, McHarris, Rogozhin, Durham, Watson, Kadin, Baugher, Heckman, Bennett etc. etc. It just needs all pulling together. Are you the man? For me it's simply a leg of a greater unifying ontological construction.

    I pulled out a number of top quotes from your essay but won't repost them. Suffice to say very well done and certainly a top score earned. I think the heavy start may have put many off as I can't understand your poor rating.

    I hope I can prevail on you to read mine and give me your views on my quite different and slightly more radical essay. I hope you find it all pulls together.

    Very well done and thank you for yours.

    Peter

      Hi Peter,

      Thank you for your kind words.

      As I also described in last years essay contest, the crux to further progress is the *proof* of incompleteness for the "physically-real theories" that Einstein was after. There is no choice but to go through this result in one way or another, so others are *definitely* going to arrive at the same point - it is just a matter of time. The suprising thing is just how widespread this result is in science; finding the origin of QT is just the start of a far bigger paradigm shift in science. The scale of it means that many others will probe similar issues; I went for the heart of it in the most straightforward and generic way in physics.

      The "heavy" start is because I think that it is necessary to reframe Wheelers point otherwise you just end up going down the same old trail and coming up with nothing new. Paradigm shifts have never been popular in the entire history of intellectual thought, so it is no suprise that this one is turning out to be equally unpopular. But there is nowhere else to go, so the whole of science is going to have to face it eventualy. As with past paradigm shifts, this one has been found by someone not in academia - this seems to be the really unacceptible part.

      I have downloaded your essay and will download the essays you noted. I will be reading them later as I'm on vacation and can only get French internet access in tourist information offices.

      All the best

      Michael

      Hi Than Tin

      I discovered the truth of Feyman's words in last years essay contest, when I found that there exists an independent way of arriving at exactly the same topological conditions as in my geometric unification of physics. There was also a hint from other essays last year that there could be a third way as well.

      Michael

      Hi Akinbo

      Your questions are framed in the context of what I call the *quantum myth* which everyone seems to like because you can go round and round in it for all eternity without ever reaching a conclusion (I think you have unreasonably large pockets). The existence/non-existence of an 'it' is the fundamental digital character of existence. The problem that I find is that attempting to construct a theory that always describes this binary state by 0 and 1 fails and you *have* to adopt a continuous real number description instead. The digital reality doesn't change but your description of reality *has* to change - the weird features of QT follow from this change.

      Best

      Michael

      Dear Michael,

      You write

      "Such switching from natural-numbers to real-numbers in theory and back again, is at the heart of what quantum theory is really about".

      I tend to agree. I would say in a wider perspective: understanding the deep mathematical meaning of quantum theory is crucial to interpret it physically.

      "And in fact, quantum theory predicts you will never measure a particle as both existing and not existing at the same time"

      I think that I am close to understand this fact (and others) with Grothendieck's concept of 'dessins d'enfants'. In my essay, edges in a dessin are (multiple spin) quantum observables and their extremities are the two possible values that one can measure

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

      Your essay reveals a well structured thought. You still say (after Henri Poincaré) "a mathematical theory in science is a description of reality in the language of maths, not reality itself", this perfectly fits my philosophy of science.

      Number theory is considered the Queen of Mathematics but it is no longer my view after some practice of QM and the various branches of mathematics it involves.

      Thank you for you well written and impressive essay.

      I visited your chiral (Spin(3)xSU(2)xU(1))/Z3 quantum field theory too but may be the summer is too hot in France these days!

      You can expect a high rate from my side.

      Good luck,

      Michel

        Hi Michael,

        Reading your great essay makes me regret not having made time enough to thoroughly read your book, which I think is requisite to understanding your final statement -- so I am not yet sure I can fully agree with your boldest claims.

        Nevertheless, we still agree in principle on a great number of important things concerning relativity, and strongly with, "Stop the progression away from thinking about physics in terms of material objects and their interactions, and come back to reality." Even if I remain unconvinced that there is any reality to come back to; if not, the rejection of particle reality is complete.

        I am happy to have given your essay a deserved rating boost.

        My own essay overlaps with yours in significant ways, particularly concerning the behavior of fermions in a continuum theory. I hope you find it worthwhile.

        All best,

        Tom

          I agree about the significant overlap with Tom, Michael..

          His essay has my vote as one of the first you should read after returning from your vacation. And also Michel who commented above has much to recommend your attention. I hope your Summer vacation has been excellent!

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          Dear Michael.

          I had to read your essay twice and it could well reward further reading.

          You have hit upon an important way to tackle that old monster of physics: quantum weirdness. Agent physics seems to do with interaction, with measurement, with sensing and you are saying that the energy spent doing that is its important characteristic.

          In my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here however, I have created the starting point of what you would call Object physics: A universal lattice of nodes that interact locally, causally and linearly to define particles, energy transport, etc. In such model Universe where would the Agent physics operate? There is no observer, no measurer, no frames of reference, and all the numbers are Natural. I have shown that in such a Universe probability is derivative. It is a physics wherein the background and foreground are one.

          In my fqxi essay The Cloud of Unknowing I concluded that while we will not know for sure, we can guess that It=Qubit. The lattice node orientation is a physical state, not a numerical value. Your opinion about some of these notions will be most appreciated.

          Vladimir

          Dear Michael,

          One single principle leads the Universe.

          Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

          is under the influence of this principle.

          Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

          I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

          but the main part is coming soon.

          Thank you, and good luck!

          I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

          Please visit My essay.

          Michael,

          I agree entirely, and understand about Wheelers views, which I think were designed to be controversial and have been taken too literally.

          I recall commending your essay last year, which was one of the few with more comments than mine! I don't recall if you read mine. I'll re-read yours after the contest. I don't recall you managed to read mine. I hope you may be able to now as the last two are precursors to this, all deriving observation from mechanism.

          I've applied a top mark to yours as I consider it even better and more pertinent than last years. I think mine supports and points to yours, as well as demonstrating the power of the approach, with a resolution or EPR I hope you'll analyse. (Also see the links in the first blog post). I also need points as I've been passed over from 7th twice, so need a better finish!

          I might also add Heinrich and Lindner to the list. Q; How many physicist does it take to shift a paradigm?

          Very best of luck,

          Peter

          5 days later

          Dear All

          Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

          In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this "I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

          Further on, he advises the readers "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

          Did he says anything about Wheeler's "It from Bit" other than what he said above?

          Than Tin

          Hi Michael,

          That was a great pleasure to read your very interesting essay. Reading so many essays I was waiting for something like that.

          You say "Einstein was right in his vision that a purely geometrical theory could achieve physics unification".

          We differ in details but we are very close. There is not a lot of entrants that I agree with so much.

          My key concept for the unification in physics is scale invariant metric. I have proposed a simple spin experiment to find out if that metric exists. The details in references to my essay.

          Despite the differences between our views (we could discuss them if you read my concept) your essay deserves the highest rating.

          Best regards

          Hi Michael,

          I liked your essay and rated it as one of he best.

          Your conclusion:

          What Einstein was wrong about was his assertion that quantum theory could be replaced by a non-probabilistic theory. Instead, The incompleteness proof gives yet another proof that there is no complete physically-real scientific theory that replaces quantum theory.

          Is correct.

          However, I will say why not drop the "physically real" part. Then there is no uncertainty concerning position and velocity. Einstein was correct about QM. However, he may have some objection about how particles really move.

          I think you will find my essay interesting. Please take a look.

          Best of luck.

          Don Limuti