Participatory Universe, Austerity and Circuit Design by Brian L Ji

Hi Brian,

I enjoyed your article and appreciate your remark that a hierarchical architecture has design advantages. I have suggested such an architecture (which I term "fractal") in my essay Software Cosmos.

My focus has been on the software level rather than the hardware, but I think once we have a plausible software design for the cosmos we would be able to suggest the hardware requirements and have something a circuit designer might love to create!

Hugh

Hi Brian,

You wrote:

> I think there are a lot of missing meanings and representative middle structures between the low levels and the real complex world.

I absolutely agree with you on that. As you will see in the essay, geometric algebra provides a common language to link the theoretical side to a computational approach. Software libraries are available, but having an efficient way to perform those calculations would be very useful. There was an attempt made by Christian Perwass about a decade ago to do an FPGA implementation, but the results were mostly disappointing. I think we could do a lot better today.

Failing that, probably the most useful low level primitives would involve handling quaternion algebra. The unit quaternions are isomorphic to the three dimensional hypersphere which has uses as an index structure, so a discrete approximation would also be very handy.

Hugh

Brian,

In the context of your interesting essay on Circuit and Computer Design and the fundamentals of information, you and your readers might be interested in some of the recent developments in superconducting circuits (my own area of research) for quantum computing, see, e.g., the Wikipedia entry on Superconducting Quantum Computing. A lossless superconducting circuit is a macroscopic quantum system which can be interfaced using conventional I/O lines.

In terms of your recollections of Prof. Wheeler, I knew Prof. Wheeler when I was an undergraduate at Princeton 40 years ago, and he was a superb lecturer. But I disagree with his assertion that information is more fundamental than matter. See my essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ), where I present a simple realistic picture of the microscopic world that avoids most of the conventional paradoxes, and also leads naturally to a form of general relativity.

Alan

Hi Brian,

Unfortunately it looks like the direct link I gave to Google Books for the FPGA Implementation paper does not work. You will have to google for "Christian Perwass" and his article "Implementation of a Clifford algebra co-processor design on a field programmable gate array" and then click on the PDF link in the results to get to it.

Hugh

Hello Brian,

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog, if I have not rated already..

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Hi Brian,

This is a reply to your two comments above. Thanks for replying those 4 questions.

Yes, Wheeler's dream can play a big role in the future. Your professional interest that "bit from it" would certainly give you a part to play in this. To maximize that role most efficiently you have to find out: what is 'it'? is there a smallest possible 'it'? What kind of 'bit' can we get from that 'it' and how can this be manipulated?

Have you read and rated my essay?

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

the second sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

Examples

starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

d-super.pdf)

Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

All this started with a simple question, who am I?

I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

I super positioned my self or I to be me.

I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

I am phi, zero = I = infinity

I am human and I is GOD.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Brian,

I read your essay with great interest, It is written in the spirit of Rene Descartes: "loud and clear" very good language with illustrations. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions: «New breakthroughs are likely to happen at the boundaries between universality in information processing and its physical representation in the universe and life.»

«Today, there appears to be greater opportunities for physicists and designers to work together to explore the complex world.». «I think these laws will be discovered when we try to build prototype machines behaving like Wheeler's "participatory universe". »

Such a universe philosopher and mathematician Basil Nalimov called "self-aware Universe."

And a very good question in conclusion: My question is: what will be the role of circuit design in foundational physics?

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics": «The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence. »

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

And I have for you a second question: How should the physics go to physical picture of the world was as rich in meaning as the picture of the world lyricists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Maybe matter physicists should see the soul and memory?

I put the rating of your essay "nine". Please look at my essay and fair vote.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear Brian,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Brian

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

Hi Brian,

I found your essay intriguing and insightful in your approach to the topic. Your analogy and comparisons of computer circuitry and quantum information, I found to be original. Although you have a different approach to the topic than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

Best of luck to you in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Hello Brian,

Flat and hierarchical architecture was a very logical idea to present - well done. I like that you looked at the Universe/computer from the point of view that participants may play an increasing role collectively in the future.

Indeed it made me think more about the fact that there are many observers but seemingly one Universe. The slightest of difference I can see for each observer is that they have their own unique observable universe where they are at the "centre". But really great thoughts here. I rate your essay very highly. Please take a look at my essay if you get time. It's based around observation and the Fibonacci sequence.

Well done & best wishes,

Antony