Alternative Models of Reality

"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.

Hi Steve,

The scientists at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, disagreed with you when they wrote: "So let's choose a very simple electromagnetic clock. It uses electromagnetic waves and mirrors: it has a pulse of light going from side to side across her car (whose width is w). Zoe has timing apparatus to measure the time between reflections in the windows".

It means that they expected the reflective activity of a light pulse to last very long, having the life expectancy of a long trip (way more than 10 times of reflection.)

Actually, if you want to keep reflections of one light pulse alive, you just need a chain of mirrors facing each other at a specific angle in which one mirror can receive the pulse and reflect it in its neighbor. This principle is not new with people who build telescopes or work in the fiber glass industry. If there was "10% loss per pass" they would be in deep trouble.

But that is not my point.

Writing "Light and Space-Mark" I do not look for the accurate number of photons lost during the reflective processing. The peculiar short life of reflective activity between two parallel mirrors piqued my curiosity and gave me an aspiration to search for a reason. And I found it (or should I say that I found one of the reasons - the main one): All the mirrors and surfaces that can reflect images are flowing incessantly in space... (Test # 2)

That led to another discovery: Light cannot be pushed or pulled; this phenomenon is consistent with one light's well known characteristic: Even residing inside a fast moving spaceship, it never changes its velocity. (Maxwell). Actually, my discovery helps Maxwell's discovery by clearly explaining why light doesn't change its speed inside a fast moving spaceship.

Does my discovery have any practical application (or just for fun?) This is what I believe: "Someday our engineers would successfully find a way to measure the speed of the Universe and even its moving direction. We have found the "material" for creating Space-mark."

I apologize for my writing that apparently is not well enough to bring you the big picture.

Dieu

Very good. I like to see people who do not give up easily. You should not defer to other experts when you make an argument, use your own logic and discourse.

Lasers work by reflecting light between very well aligned mirrors along with a gain medium to make up for the losses that we are talking about. Really good mirrors have only about 0.5% loss and windows oriented at the brewster angle help as well. One of the mirrors allows some light to escape and make the laser that we see.

What this has to do with your thesis is not that clear to me. Lasers are coherent light amplifiers that have very nice and useful properties. You seem to talk about a laser cavity which is like confinement of light, but you do not include a gain medium and so without gain, two mirrors will trap a decaying envelope of light.

This is why this does not seem like a discovery to me.

Kjetil,

I will come back to space again later, since it is a more difficult subject and we can keep arguing in the fashion of Leibniz and Newton...

Still talking about, 'simpler building blocks', 'fundamental building blocks', etc

Does matter have size? If so, can something that has size be built from something that has no size, and if so how? Tell us how the 'size' came into being. Or can multiple of 0's (zeroes) add up to something that is not zero?

Regards,

Akinbo

Peter

Hi Peter

My apologies for late answer. I don't think there are anything in our reasoning that exclude each others idea, and I find your ideas very intriguing. But we talk about two different realms I think. The reason for - or one of them - that I find it intriguing is that you are describing systems that are much more complex than mere binary systems could describe if they where not built of structures of lot "smaller" entities. Suggesting that if the idea about describing reality with a binary is not flat out wrong, it is a realm beneath quantum mechanichs.

Best regards,

Kjetil

Hi Akinbo,

Thanks for asking these questions, it's valuable help in refining and thinking through ideas. Matter has size but the bits have not. Size as all other properties is a result of how these bits are related to each other. For a structure like a particle to have size means that it interacts with different parts of the (information) structure that represent space. I think the interesting thing with this is that it is entirely background independent. This will also mean that if you tried to observe such a universe from the outside, it would have zero size. (Aside from the point that it is impossible to interact with it)

Is this meaningful or should I work more on text?

Best regards,

Kjetil

Hi Steve,

You gave me another advice!

This one is about debating technique: "You should not defer to other experts when you make an argument, use your own logic and discourse."

Thank you for your generosity, but I regret that I cannot take it seriously.

You did not do the research, work in the lab, and set up the experiment by yourself to come up with the statements like: "That number is roughly consistent with the 10% loss per pass," "Really good mirrors have only about 0.5% loss"... did you? I'm pretty sure that they all come from the experts of the field.

The experts' lab works, observation, analysis, arguments, conclusion etc... are the base for mankind's civilization, and thru education, become the valuable and credible part of an individual's knowledge. A proper use of the experts' discovered facts and results in talking, writing shows your level of education and intelligence, and most of all, affirms that you know exactly what you're talking about.

Some time, it serves as a good bait.

During a debate, if you throw at your opponent an expert's statement contradicting his argument; you usually can expect two kinds of reaction. If your opponent is sincere and honest, he might wake up and quit bothering you. But if the guy is arrogant and not smart enough, he would be vigorously arguing against the... experts. And that is really, really hilarious. Try it some time, Steve. You will have a good laugh, believe me.

No less interesting than your advice is your statement"...two mirrors will trap a decaying envelope of light." The word "trap" really caught my attention.

Does that mean when the two mirrors keep moving (they always move in space) "the trapped decaying envelope of light" should move along, too?

If your answer is Yes, you're creating a situation in which light's velocity inside a moving car changes - it goes faster: c (speed of light) v (speed of the mirrors), and you just prove that Maxwell's discovery of the characteristic of light is invalid. I don't think you want to do that.

If your answer is "no" (the trapped decaying envelope of light doesn't move along,) you might be getting close to understand that two moving mirrors would seriously affect the lasting of reflective activity - It does not take a lot of effort to think about and imagine the picture.

Sorry to disappoint you, Steve. I now realize my failure in communicating my idea to you. I shall give up. I'd like to be excused from any further discussion with you about this topic. Because I want to save precious time for both of us.

And because, I admit, you have pushed me to a corner. I run out of experts for you to argue against!

Dieu

Hi Steve,

Take a look back, I recognize that we had a nice and very informative discussion (due to your expertise?). So please do not hesitate to give comment when I come up with new topic.

I always want to learn from you all.

Thanks,

Dieu

Theory of Everything using Leibniz, Kant and German Idealism

http://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as_an_Output_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_using_Leibniz_Kant_and_German_Idealism

Darius,

I read you text on the link. Very long and learned. The essential is that we contribute to and transform our sensory experience. We are in the way. Once we know that, we can move directly to the metaphysics.

Once we know that we aim for a metaphysical clean slate.

1) Maths are effective

2) root of maths is logic

3) perception is mathematical transform (experience reflect logic of substance)

4) so, underlying reality works by logic.

5) a logic based underlying reality needs one substance, one cause and one rule of logic. That is all that is needed for the universe to emerge...

Marcel,

p.s. Guess what the substance is...

Interesting hypothesis. A few consequences in my opinion are

1. The Universe is digital not analog.

2. There is discreteness on the smallest scales.

3. A Simulated Universe cannot be infinite in extent. That is, the 'computer screen' must have a size, even if still increasing.

What will the most economical pixels for such a universe/

What will be the binary states, representable by the digits 0 and 1 in such a universe?

John, more later as time running out...

"Let's start with the assumption that you don't really exist in a really real reality. Instead, you are virtual reality..."

1. If you can have real reality, why would one prefer virtual reality. If you can watch a live match, why would you prefer watching on TV?

2. Programming requires intelligence. Intelligence can come from H, C, O, N atoms that are not intelligent. They form DNA, spermatozoa, baby, adult, etc. So intelligence can appear from what is not intelligent and intelligence can grow. Therefore intelligence can be created by chance or design from what is not intelligent. So simulated universe may not have been programmed right from the beginning

More later... time out

Akinbo

Some of the more promised...

Certainly, this is an interesting hypothesis. Even, if it is not correct, it must lead to a greater understanding of what is correct about reality. So John, I will be interrogating this hypothesis from time to time and my preferred method is by reductio ad absurdum type arguments, including formulation of paradoxes. I have made two interrogations in last post. Here is more...

Even though you might play various simulation or video games, you in turn are being played, or at least programmed, by persons or things unknown.

3. Now, if we play simulation or video games, and are in turn being programmed, it is a possibility that our programmer is in turn being programmed, and the programmer of our programmer is in turn being programmed, and the programmer of the programmer of our programmer is in turn being programmed, ad infinitum. Where can this end?

4. In last post, I suggested that intelligence (natural or artificial) which is required for programming can be acquired from what is not intelligent by chance or by design. If this be the case, can the universe acquire the intelligence for its own programming without the necessity for a Supreme Programmer?

5. On a computer screen, although I am not a software expert, I see that when a red box moves against a white background, the pixels depicting the red box change to white as an equivalent number and shape of white background pixels in the direction of motion, change to red. Can this be done in a real universe when a red box moves? Is it a different red box at each succeeding instant of motion or the same red box?

An interest of mine, if not my major interest is how 'motion' can be programmed or simulated by the universe itself or by a Supreme programmer? I will like your thoughts on this, and from others who view 'motion' as a digital phenomenon.

6. As one went down to finer and finer resolutions, pixels would appear like the dots on a newspaper or TV screen at extreme magnification. I guess that's the quantum foam level.

An enduring argument, is whether the 'pixels' of geometry can be zero sized. If so, can extreme magnification turn them to dots?

The hypothesis would have been a fitting contribution to one of the past FQXi essays.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Thanks for the feedback. Just a few quick thoughts on some of your comments. Firstly, it's not a matter of preferring virtual reality over real reality, that just happens to be the way the cards were dealt, just like the characters in our video games have no say in how their cards were dealt. If you could somehow ask them if they viewed themselves and their landscape as really real or virtually real, I'm sure they would say they had the quality of real reality. And what does it ultimately matter if we are bits and bytes instead of quarks and electrons. Death and taxes are still on the agenda! Speaking of death, the one potential benefit in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe is that there's a technological ways and means to an afterlife. Terminate John's life subroutine software programme; begin John's afterlife subroutine software program.

Of course programming a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe requires an intelligence. That intelligence precedes the simulation. Intelligence appears to be one of many emergent properties that can arise out of simpler constructs - like CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen).

It is possible that we are a simulation and that we in turn create simulations and maybe our simulated characters could in turn be programmed to create simulations. Ultimately however, all of these simulations within simulations within simulations reside in a really real cosmos, the nature of which could be drastically different than our simulated one in terms of what their laws, principles and relations of physics might be. The cosmos of our video games is not always a reflection of the cosmos we inhabit. It's sort of akin to how cosmologists postulate a Multiverse each with differing physics in order to explain the fine-tuning of our Universe.

As to motion in the simulation, I suspect that is achieved in the same sort of way as motion is simulated in our scientific simulations, our training simulations, and of course in our entertainment simulations. I don't see a problem here but I'm not a computer/software programmer.

IMHO nothing of substance, including a pixel, can be zero sized - a zero dimensional point. That's just an abstract mental concept. You can't actually construct anything with zero volume, one great difficulty I have with the concept of a singularity - infinite density in zero volume. I'll eventually be addressing that can of worms, probably in the cosmology area.

This is not just a fanciful topic without utility. As pointed out, "...the simulation hypothesis comes in very handy in resolving conflicts between theory and observation". I agree.

But I will utter a loud Hmmmm to the post: "Firstly, it's not a matter of preferring virtual reality over real reality, that just happens to be the way the cards were dealt, just like the characters in our video games have no say in how their cards were dealt. If you could somehow ask them if they viewed themselves and their landscape as really real or virtually real, I'm sure they would say they had the quality of real reality..."

I say Hmmm because I wonder if characters in our video games are also wondering like you are wondering whether they are simulations.

Does a Supreme Programmer include in his program that his design should wonder whether they are simulations? I don't think so because it does not benefit the programmer nor the simulated to wonder whether if that were the case or not. It is also of know evolutionary value to so wonder (if Darwin's theory is covered in the simulated universe story).

Are you using a pseudonym?

Akinbo

(I had to remove quotation marks from certain places as they did not display properly in the output). I have a problem with anything arising accidentally out of probability of it happening. Even the word probability represents a very nebulous concept.

It means that you might observe a phenomenon a certain number of times if you succeeded in replicating that exact circumstance 100 times. It really refers to no scientific theory, but, rather, to a statistical theory. You will observe something a number of times out of 100 (or even 10,000) if you were to be able to replicate the exact conditions over and over again.

Anything based on this is not a theory. It is merely an observation of facts, and then expressing the outcome in percentage terms. It has no predictive value, because predicting something (like the weather), is not really is scientific prediction. It merely tells you whether you ought to bother to bring an umbrella or not. Which is why our weather channel tells us we will get rain, and then there is none. NO predictive value.

Anything based on probability is not science. Just as predicting the weather is not science. Science is perfect (within margins of error).

Probability is not a principle. It is merely a summary of observations. Quantum Theory (Mechanics) is not really a theory. It does not explain and derive its conclusions from first principles. It only reports (after the fact) on the likelihood of certain events occurring.

If there were no causality (and perfect predictability), then you could not get a perfect half-life of (radioactive) particles. That very fact is ipso facto proof that there is a governing principle that decides when and which particles will disintegrate (releasing corresponding electromagnetic energy).

Now I do not actually believe in causality in its ordinary understanding, but that is another discussion not encumbering any of the above. It is a different principle, not in any way dependent on any uncertainty in the universe.

The universe knows what it is doing at all times, and does not need our feeble brains to tell it how to behave (so forget anthropomorphism and any other nonsense like multiverses and the like). I am not even convinced about expansion, but since I do not have any scientific evidence for nor against it, I will let that go for now.

The answer is staring us in the face, but we need another Einstein (and it will not be me; in fact, I guarantee it). But I will be able to tell who it is once I see what (s)he says.

[And, btw, the idea of (quantized) gravitons is laughable; gravity acts at infinite distances, far faster than any gravitons could muster.]

I will only answer responses that make sense to me. I may be wrong in everything, but I have to divide my time so it makes sense to me.