Alternative Models of Reality

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

The correct link (David Gross "Iz chego sostoit prostranstvo-vremya / What is in the space-time ").

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.

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

Actually, I did do the actual experiments that showed the actual losses for common mirrors versus laser mirrors. It was fun research with lots of nice lasers and spectrometers and such.

The problem with experts is that they have a vested interest that interest is in staying funded. The agency that funds you has certain expectations and those expectations cannot deviate from mainstream science...is that very shocking?

No, that is human nature.

Anyway, what you are asking about is pretty plain-jane stuff and really not very contentious, but you seem to have taken offense. So be it. Life is short and forever sublime...