Alternative Models of Reality

Georgina,

I agree, But light reflect not at c wrt moving mirrors but at c in the background 'approach' frame even if a 'vacuum'!! That's a major Achilles heel for Tom's doctrinal interpretation of SR.

A consistent solution is here; http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163. The 'virtual electron' plasma near/far field TZ has exactly the same dynamic 'two-fluid' structure as bow shocks, and does the same job.

The 4 'cluster' probes have been mapping Earth's shock. See attachments below, including the wavelength change found, characterises as anomalous 'electron heating'.

Best wishes

PeterAttachment #1: Cluster_BowShock_A_200.jpgAttachment #2: Cluster_bow-shock_electron_temp.jpg

The light pulse's activity of reflecting back and forth between two parallel mirrors should be continuing infinitely. Instead, it never lasts longer than a few nanoseconds. The flashing images of transparent objects exist between two mirrors immediately disappears when the original source is gone. Why?

My answer:A SPECIAL LIGHT'S CHARACTERISTIC LIMITS THE TIMES OF REFLECTIONS BETWEEN MIRRORS

See attachment or: http://www.einsteinerrs.com/light-and-spacemark.htmlAttachment #1: LIGHT_AND_SPACEMARK.pdf

On the universe, infinities and a final word about god.

In all human human history we have been wondering about where everything we perceive around us come from and, as an extension of that question, how big everything is. The one really interesting thing to know about size is whether it is finite or infinite and the answer to that question will yield valuable insight for understanding how everything is constructed at the most fundamental level.

Although it will never be possible to dismantle reality in its most minute parts, it is certainly possible to reason about them. And here we assume that if we can construct a logical structure where it is possible to describe every aspect of reality, then this is how reality is made.

So, how can we describe the universe in the simplest possible way?

First take an infinite length set where each element can be one of two values. On all items in the set apply any truly random function that gives not only one or the other value for all items. For simplicity we will call each item a bit.

We now have a snapshot of any possible constellation of bits, both finite and infinite and therefore - if we assume that anything can be described in a binary representation - any possible universe.

But what makes up a universe? A universe must consist of bits that are in some way related. Let us call that relation an interaction - whose exact nature we don't have to know at this point - and expand the transitive relation from the basic - element a is related to element b and b is related to c therefore a is related to c - to a really long subset. We can Then define the universe as a collection of bits with a nonzero chance of interacting. This insight has a profound influence on the possibility that a collection of bits could be infinite. An infinite universe would, with that definition, cause infinitely many bits to interact with any one bit. Not just over the life of the universe, but all the time. (We'll get back to the thing about time in the sequel.) Such an arrangement will not lead to any interesting structures but will appear more like an infinite but uniform blaze. This also leeds us to the unavoidable conclution that the universe at the most fundamental level is discrete. An infinite subset represents a smooth universe and a finite subset represents a discrete one. However, the fact that the universe is discrete does not mean that it wont appear smooth. One can for example apply a function to the discrete bits such as a fractal to make it appear both smooth and infinite even if the actual information contained is finite.

This seemingly simple insight does not contradict with any laws of physics that we know of but still have huge implications. Most important being that the universe has to be finite and made up of very simple discrete elements. This may help us to better understand singularities like black holes, what time is and explain why entanglement is not so strange even though it certainly appears to be. And as for explaining the last part of the title. This does not rule out that we are part of some kind of simulation, but any construct that runs it must ultimately be finite and consist of a very large heap with two distinct values. Which really makes a layer of simulation an unneccessary complication of reality.

I hesitate to respond, but respond I must.

Every reflection of light at a mirror results in some loss, usually around 10% or so. There are many ways to improve the reflection loss, but a 10% loss per reflection means that light seems to decay very quickly. Remember that our eyesight has only about a factor of ten dynamic range for a particular exposure, and so multiple reflections appear to decay by eyesight much more than they actually do. Although our eyes can recover many orders of magnitude sensitivity in darkness, our eye's response at any given intensity is only a factor of ten or so.

Now, lasers work by the principle of mirror entrapment and optical gain by simulated emission and lasers work just fine. Lasers have a gain media that compensates for the reflective loss of the end mirrors and so lasers use multiple reflections to achieve really cool and coherent beams of light.

So you really need to think much more about the measurements that you are speaking about before you make any pronouncements about light and mirrors...

Hi Kjetil,

You wrote "This does not rule out that we are part of some kind of simulation, but any construct that runs it must ultimately be finite and consist of a very large heap with two distinct values. Which really makes a layer of simulation an unnecessary complication of reality." Please can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

Hi georgina,

Thank you for showing interest in this topic.

I think it's an unavoidable conclusion since it follows from the argument that a binary representation can describe everything, also any entity that runs a simulation. So It logically follows that a god or other entity that runs a simulation also ultimately has to be described by a binary system.

I hope to get some arguments against my idea. And please tell me if you think I'm to vague or unclear in any part of the argument.

Imagine the universe consists of bits of identical matter called particles and those particles exist in either of two phases, two states. As the particles accumulate into objects, they do so in really complex ways. There is a relationship among particles or bits that we call action. Your bits order as elements of a set by interactions, my particles order in time by action.

What you have described is the universe that we are in. All you need is to assign a particle to each bit, an action equation for their interactions, and of course time to represent the ordering of the elements of the set. Note that you do not need space for your universe, but certainly you can project a space from the interactions of bits over the ordering of elements of subsets.

You arguments about the universe being finite and discrete are the very same arguments that we use all of the time. The question about whether the universe is part of a simulation is simply the question,

"Why is the universe the way it is?"

There are no unique answers to this question, but that doesn't stop people from answering it in many different ways, including with various supernatural agents. Such questions define the limits of what we can know and the simplicity of what you describe.

My words for this simple universe are matter, time, and action, your words are bits, sets of elements, and interactions. Such trimal axioms appear to be the simplest foundation for a universe.

Hi Steve, seems we are using slightly different semantics on the same issues. I wanted to call the smallest elements something other than particles since I think of particles as a much more complex structure. And I used the word interaction to underline that the relation between bits leads to a change - which I think gives rise to time. (Time ticks for every interaction) The relation Between structures of bits gives us space and also leads to the physical laws. And as you say this must be the simplest foundation of any universe also the one that runs a simulation.

The question "why the universe is the way it is" is still unanswered, but it may be simpler to figure it out when we have decided the foundation for it all.

Hello Kjetil,

Read your thought provoking post and single out -

This also leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that the universe at the most fundamental level is discrete. An infinite subset represents a smooth universe and a finite subset represents a discrete one. However, the fact that the universe is discrete does not mean that it wont appear smooth..

Taking heed of advice from Lucretius: "...however endlessly infinite the Universe may be, yet the smallest things will equally consist of an infinite number of parts. Since true reason cries out against this and denies that the mind can believe it, you must needs give in and admit that there are least parts which themselves are partless", and

Galileo: "He who attempts natural philosophy without geometry is lost"

Knowing that geometry is the study of space and its properties, would you like to consider a rephrasing of your statement thus:

This also leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that space at the most fundamental level is discrete... However, the fact that space is discrete does not mean that it wont appear smooth.?

If you are, I can suggest how space manages to present its dual nature of being simultaneously continuous with no space between its 'bits' and discrete in the form of the geometric point. I can suggest what can separate the discreteness of space, since space cannot do its own separation into its discrete units

Regards,

Akinbo

Zeeya Merali notes in "The Origins of Time and Space": «Van Raamsdonk and his colleagues are convinced that physics will not be complete until it can explain how space and time emerge from something more fundamental...».

Unfortunately, none of the presented concepts does not delve into the ontological basis of nature, in the dialectic of "coincidence of opposites". The authors do not consider the limits of reality, the limit values of matter. In all of the concepts of a lot of unnecessary concepts that leads away from the nature and structure of space, the nature of time - the ideal essences. Occam's razor should be very sharp to search for "the origins".

In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard of justification of knowledge along with the empirical standard. In my essay I gave the ontological justification of the structure of space and then substantiate the nature of time. Way to overcome the ontological crisis in fundamental physics - the total ontological unification of matter at all levels of being.

Triune ontological basis as the triunity absolute (unconditioned) states of matter: absolute motion (rotation, "vortex", discretuum) + absolute rest (linear state, continuum) + absolute becoming (absolute wave as "figaro" of states = discretuum + continuum).

Each absolute state of matter has three absolute dimensions: three "linear" dimensions + three "vortex" dimensions + three "wave" dimensions. As a result, the structure of space - nine absolute dimensions of absolute space.

Three of the absolute state of matter represents the three "origins geometrized»: "sphere" + "cube" + "cylinder". Each limit (absolute, unconditional) state of its way - the absolute vector, the vector of the absolute state. This ontological "heavenly triangle" (Plato) of the absolute states of matter - the ontological basis, framework and carcass of knowledge, the ontological representation of the triune foundation of knowledge. This is what David Gross calls - "general framework structure"

">(David Gross "Iz chego sostoit prostranstvo-vremya / What is in the space-time")](https://expert.ru/expert/2013/06/iz-chego-sostoit-prostranstvo-vremya/

).

It was only after the ontological justification of the structure of space, we can "grab" the nature and essence of time as a multivalent phenomenon of ontological (structural. cosmic) memory - the core, the semantic attractor of the conceptual structure of the Universum of the Information Age.

Semantically poor picture of the world "In the beginning was the Big Bang" should be replaced with a picture of the world "In the beginning was Logos..." (Meta-Law by Le Smolin or "the Law of laws"), the base of which the "general framework structure" or the "Absolute generating (maternal) structure". The result of the ontological constructing: triune (absolute) 12-dimensional space-(matter)-time.

We must not only substantiate, but also to see the "origins of reality" and "simplicity complexity", see the dialectics of nature with the most profound meaning of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). Then we will not "torture" of nature, and shall carry with it a deep dialogue.

Dear Zeeya,

I have already suggested the idea of presenting all alternative views on the "origins of reality" in a brief tabular form on the portal FQXi. Is it possible? It would be easy to compare and discuss. Each model will have its own discussion thread. At the present time all the alternative concept of participants scattered to five contests.

Note that almost immediately after the announcement of the contest concludes the discussion. I believe the reason - the lack of the visibility in the comparison of ideas and concepts in the Contests.

Regards,

Vladimir Rogozhin

Hello Akinbo,

I think rephrasing it would not be wrong, but it would hide the idea that space and its geometries emerges from how the smallest bits interacts with each other. I think that space is a representation of how bits - or more accurate structures of bits - are related to each other. When a complex structure like a particle moves in respect to space it gradually changes which bits it interacts with and thereby moving in space. (This may be why there is a max velocity.) I think such an arrangement is the only way it can work if we build everything in a binary representation, this makes it possible to change location in space without having to know more than the last interacting bits. In other words its not necessary with a larger reference frame to move in space. (I may have to work more with how I describe it to make it clearer)

And best regards Akinbo,

Kjetil

Yes, but isn't it fun that there is a trimal for each basis. That is really cool...It appears that any universe needs at least three axioms and with those three axioms, our universe follows....Very nice!

Kjetil,

Cross-examining you further...

"...how the smallest bits interacts with each other.", "structures of bits" connotes that bits can have some relationship with size or can be extended objects or behaviour. How small can this be? Is there a smallest possible size and what would you call that?

"if we build everything in a binary representation", what property would be the most fundamental to represent by 0 and 1? A property to which all other properties would be secondary to or can be derived from. A primal property, which if it were absent, no other property can be ascribed.

"In other words its not necessary with a larger reference frame to move in space". I didn't quite get this. But spend some thought on the quotes below concerning what we call 'motion'.

"Why, because the one, if it were moved, would be either moved in place or changed in nature; for these are the only kinds of motion" - Parmenides by Plato 370 B.C.E.

"What is in motion moves neither in the place it is nor in one in which it is not" - Zeno of Elea. He went on to formulate some paradoxes. You may find the Dichotomy and Arrow paradoxes interesting in your further work. If you also have solution to the paradoxes, what are these?

Regards,

Akinbo

Kjetil,

I've also employed infinite subsets, but show limits to binary analysis. i.e. The 'square' waves we send as binary signals are broken down by nature into curved waves, which should be considered as helical in 3D. Even smaller gauge helices are indeed what we find (i.e. spin-orbit relation and 'hyperfine' spin).

A fractal recursive gauge model emerges, largely equivalent to the 'dimensions' in string theory but tangible. My essay this years showed how a classical derivation of QM predictions could be derived from this foundation. The previous well supported essay discussed the logical basis leading to that; I from Bit.. IQbit "The Intelligent Bit." 2013.

A short summary of the QM prediction, obtained as Bell predicted, is here; Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

Discrete orbital actions are the key, with binary SYSTEMS (+1 -1 with a non zero ground state between) as a toroidal (twin helical path) fractal.

I hope you'll look over and find some 'unity in hidden likeness' or advise if not.

Best wishes

Peter

"One can for example apply a function to the discrete bits such as a fractal to make it appear both smooth and infinite even if the actual information contained is finite."

Exactly right, Kjetil. One is reminded that Mandelbrot began his investigation of fractal geometry with the question "How long is the coastline of England?"

The answer is scale dependent. The coastline has a definite finite length; as a measured phenomenon relative to scale, though, it appears as a finite set of infinite measurement bits.

Hi again Akinbo thanks for excellent feedback,

this idea about bits surfaced when I started to think about how one could describe physical properties using the absolutely simplest building blocks and saw that it is probably possible to describe every physical property with a binary representation. I looked for simple consequences of this and every time I encountered a property that meant being more than one of two values it had to be built of simpler building blocks. This means that everything emerges from these bits. They have no size, size being a property of space and space emerge from the bits, or more to the point how the bits are related to each other. They are just a logical construct, it will never be possible to crush particles to show them, but if they can represent everything then they are the fundamental building blocks. I think time is a result of the bits interacting with each other, but it is probably more complex than just one interaction equals one tick of time. So, no time no interactions and hence no movement. But we know that there must be some difference since we know from experience that when time flows one arrow will stand still and the other will move. And here different structures of bits comes in to play - structures of bits that for example represent matter must interact with a layer - or a very large structure - of bits that represent space. Movement must be loops of interaction between the structure that moves and the structure being space. Loops that will continue for a very long time left unhindered - changing which bits it interacts with thereby moving in space. That is the difference of the arrows.

And for the dichotomy paradox - aside from the point with ever shorter periods of time - these bits are per definition undividable making it in a finite universe impossible to divide infinitely. (There is of course always the possibility that moving in space is a result of a function acting on finite set bits that will appear smooth.)

I'll have to answer Peter tomorrow it seems...

Best regards

Kjetil

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your comment and advice.

But since the photons coming from stars far far away can survive a trip of millions of light years in distance and millions of years in time, and that "A single photon might be able to reflect continually, assuming there were truly parallel surfaces at the molecular level," (David Yarbrough), I believe that photons should be bouncing between mirrors for a very long time, keeping the reflections continuous.

But let's assume that two, three or five photons out of ten will be lost. This loss is not enough to instantly shut down all the reflective activity. The light in the mirrored room should slowly dim out when the candle flame is extinguished, not immediately disappear.

The only explanation left is the entire mirrored room has moved out of the space where reflective phenomenon is supposed to occur.

What I thought you were referring to is the number of reflections that you can count when you position two mirrors against each other. That number is roughly consistent with the 10% loss per pass, which is mostly scattering and not really absorption by the way. Scattering is the most pernicious loss for reflection since you then lose the image, but not the light.

Instead of mirrors, just fill your room with white scattering material that does not absorb...does that change anything? The light will continue on, but become incoherent. This is called an integrating sphere in spectroscopy and we use it all of the time for this kind of measurement.