Duality in Cosmology and the Limits to the Acquisition of Information by Lawrence B Crowell

Lawrence Crowell

Essay Abstract

Some physics is advanced to argue it is not possible for humans or any intelligent life to completely simulate the universe. This preserves some element of scientific objectivity, for we have a measure of confidence that we are not avatars in a simulation and the universe is a natural system. There are then certain limits to growth humans and any Information Gathering Using System (IGUS) system is limited in its ability to acquire energy and information.

Author Bio

Doctoral work at Purdue. Worked on orbital navigation and currently work on IT and programming. I think it is likely there is some subtle, and in some ways simple, physical principle that is not understood, or some current principle that is an obstruction. It is likely our inability to work quantum physics and gravity into a coherent whole is likely to be solved through new postulates or physical axioms, or the removal of current ones.

Download Essay PDF File

Joe Fisher

My Dear Doctor Crowell,

I found your exceptionally well written essay quite fascinating and I do hope for your sake that it does well in the competition.

You wrote: "Time does not select unique events, but events occur within time independent of any time scale." That statement is completely and utterly wrong. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, everything real and imagined is unique, once.

Reality is the simplest thing. All surfaces travel at the constant speed of light. All non-surfaces travel inconsistently at a speed that is less than the constant speed of light. You can prove this simple fact by looking around you. Whether it is the surfaces of the stars, or the moon, or the grass on the front lawn or your wife, you can see them when they are in view and the only way you could do that is if they and you were travelling at the same speed.

All information is abstract and it has nothing to do with reality. Each person has unique fingerprints. Each person has a unique dollop of DNA. Each person must have unique intelligence. Fabricated intelligence could never be unique in human terms. Fabricated intelligence has to be fabricated. The brain in the bottle could only be given instructions on how to select coded information. Informational instructions could never be unique.

With best regards,

Joe Fisher

Lawrence Crowell

The statement that time does not select unique events just means that event in time are distributed in a "Copernican manner." The equivalent statement about space is that objects are distributed in space in an equiprobable manner. This is a cornerstone of physics, where the homogeneity of space gives conservation of momentum and isotropy gives conservation of angular momentum. A nonuniqueness of time and the distribution of events in time gives conservation of energy. Of course I was referring to the doomsday conjecture in this instance, where the argument tends to give a probability distribution based on time. It is similar to the gambler's fallacy.

Your thesis about "reality" of course is in serious opposition with the character of physical thought and how natural principles are reasoned through. It is not possible that it can ever result in any change in our understanding of physical foundations. The scientific understanding of the physical world is not at all working in your favor. All of the uniqueness that you cite as fundamental to our world is really in many ways additional noise that tends to conceal underlying equivalencies.

Cheers LC

Joe Fisher

Dear Doctor Crowell,

Physics does not have a real cornerstone. Physics is an abstraction and the only thing physics has is an abstract cornerstone. The main fundamental, basic initial, abstract cornerstone of physics is that abstract energy equals abstract mass times the abstract speed of abstract light squared.

In reality, all surfaces travel at the constant speed of light. All non-surfaces travel at an inconsistent speed that is less than the constant speed of light. Galileo proved this when he reputedly dropped the two cannonballs from the top tier of the leaning tower of Pisa. Of course both cannon balls fell at the constant speed of light. Both cannonballs would maintain the constant speed of light even if they were pushed along the ground. However, due to the fact that each cannonball had a marked difference non-surface, it would be easier to move the hollowed out ball because there would be less of its non-surface than the un-hollowed material of the other ball.

Thank you for reading my essay.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga

Lawrence,

a really interesting essay. I was only able to skim over it. So more later certainly. Unfortunately I'm currently occupied with other things.

Amazingly I was concerned with electro-magnetic duality in the last time. So, I'm also eager to see your math.

Best

Torsten

Lawrence Crowell

My essay is a bit of a shameless excuse for introducing some ideas in physics. Last week the BICEP ground announced that B-modes were found to 5 sigma. This is a signature of gravitons emitted in the inflationary cosmology that were stretched into longer wavelength gravity waves that influenced the surface of last photon scatter, or what is now the CMB. This is some interesting pieces of information that we are able to now observe. Finer detail with the "geography" of these polarizations may reveal further structure of quantum gravity, such as signatures of supergravity or gravity/gauge field equivalency. We may get information about multiverse structure. In doing this we are peering further into space and back in time. The amount of information available to us will decline and eventually we will find that we can't observer further. Observations past the horizon lead us closer to the particle horizon and a fundamental barrier to observation. This is a scale duality with the inability to localize a qubit in a volume smaller than the Planck volume.

Of course I wrap this into a discussion about the future of humanity, where I argue that this sets a fundamental limit to our ability to acquire information and to simulate worlds. The good side of this is that we will not likely be able to simulate a world that virtual observers are unable to find are unnatural. Science is in a way a sort of virtual reality Turing test, and we would probably find out if we existed in a synthetic world if it were scripted up by IGUS beings on a level II civilization or collective level. I argue though that a level of IGUS higher than this is extremely improbable. This is I think common throughout the cosmos, and is probably the case for our species.

It means there are limits to growth we are facing, though my argument concerns limits that are far into the future. However it is also apparent that we face some more immediate limits that are imposing changes on us now. I read earlier this week about a large Kelvin wave in the Pacific that could result in a serious El Nino event. We appear to be reaching limits that could prevent us from reaching the "level one" IGUS or civilization that controls all the energy or resources of their home planet.

Ryoji Furui

Dear Lawrence B Crowell,

i can not reach your essay at math part unfortunately but regarding at the end of section 2 and the comment above, i am interested in hearing more about your insight of bicep2 result. it may still hold wide range of gravitational models unless more precise data coming within this year or later. on the other hand, you may remember a paper written by Ernst Fischer in 2012 contest.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1327

it was surely daily cumulative community ranking no.1 essay in 2012 and i referred it by adding its potential energy in my later paper update. bicep2 result tells that gravitational horizon may not reach at plank scale but above of it. do you think it can be an evidence of potential energy that Fischer claiming?

regards,

ryoji

my essay at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1995

Lawrence Crowell

The BICEP result gives a ratio of tensor to scalar contribution that is large enough to conclude the B-modes are due to gravitation. String theory has a monodromy structure which has tensor and scalar modes. The tensor modes are generalized gauge potentials or gauge-like potentials in a Kaluza-Klein theory. The scalar fields are dilaton and axion fields, and the signatures of these should leave an imprint on the CMB according to higher moments in the polarization variation with a range r = tensor/scalar. In principle we should be able to measure this and this is information that is likely available to us.

Ryoji Furui

Dear Lawrence,

thank you for your reply.

i think the main concept of string theory that approaches to singularity problem (thus string shape not quantum) can be replaced by fisher's solution. on the other hand, i am fascinated by another main concept of its theory. it could form a unification structure as it is the k-k theory extension. and this would conclude everything existing in this universe is totally made of the only one thing (energy or curvature of geometry).

so again we discuss about observation of b-mode, i believe it still can be a plane general relativity story not includes string theory. and r value can be a result of Fisher's potential energy then can remove a part of string theory extensions. furthermore in my paper attached below, i postulate -aG (negative newtonian gravitational constant, a is much greater than 1?) for repulsive fields include bigbang phenomenon. and i am thinking this parameter would help to lead gravity to GUT unification?

this can be a sensitive communication here for ranking so you may ignore my reply.

regards

ryojiAttachment #1: 1_r332a.pdf

Lawrence Crowell

Dear Ryoji,

A negative constant of gravity would mean a repulsive interaction. This does occur in a way with the anti-de Sitter spacetime. This is a spacetime with a negative cosmological constant Λ < 0, is such that geodesic deviations are separating. A two dimensional version of the AdS spacetime can be seen in the Poincare half-plane or a conformal compact version in the Poincare disk. Escher drew up versions of this in his drawings "Circle Limit." The boundary of the AdS spacetime is then an Einstein spacetime of one dimension less, that contains a conformal field that has symmetries dual to the AdS spacetime isometries. We may then exist on this boundary spacetime. This duality was proven by Juan Maldecena in 1998.

Cheers LC

Ryoji Furui

Dear Lawrence,

My beginning of physics thought was back to around 1998, so it was just the time we observed the accelerating expansion of super nova. So I naturally accepted that gravity could be a repulsive force not only attractive and this was my basic concept of universe image. I am still far from mastering general relativity but now try to express on math (it is the first time indeed).

Now we roll back Einstein equation by removing cosmological constant to its initial state and apply negative constant as I suggested therefore its equation would be

[math]R_{ij}-\frac{1}{2}R\lambda(r)g_{ij}=b\kappa T_{ij}[/math]

b=1, -a (Not sure yet it is the correct way to insert Fischer's potential energy to Einstein equation). Do you think this can form the universe we observe?

Regards,

Ryoji

Lawrence Crowell

Modifying general relativity in this manner is in the literature. There is Bonnet form of GR and so called f(R) general relativity. I wrote an article that included some of this a couple of years ago in fact. It had the Ricci scalar replaced with

R --- > R + α'R^2

where the α' is the string constant. The AdS spacetime does not need to do that however. This is a spacetime that is embedded in a five dimensional flat spacetime, which in fact has two time directions. The embedding involves setting one of the time directions to a constant and the result is a spacetime with negative curvature. This is different from the f(R) modifications of general relativity.

Ryoji Furui

Dear Lawrence,

thank you for your many feedbacks.

It is the first time to hear the name f(R) general relativity though ads is often heard with the combination of cft as a string qg solution. i would learn it more later along with your other papers. at the moment, do you know the same or similar equation to my newborn one in its variations?

at last, what i am still wondering is if bicep2 data could be a last piece of observation (includes experimental) of everything with a certain theoretical model. do we need more parameters to know or predict for a grande breakthrough of physics?

thank you again,

ryoji

James Hoover

Lawrence,

Your essay is quite impressive, not only in your perception of what is but also in the depth of your knowledge.

Your argument, of course, centers on what we know as an isolated species with mixed rates of success dealing with our planet and its resources. Based on that, your analysis is peerless. But if you consider the possibility of life on other planets, one would have hope -- as I do in my novel -- that other sentient creatures might have evolved armed with better ecologically derived motivations, better intellectual tools and perhaps more resources.

Certainly mired in a technological state that seems to anchor us to this planet, consideration of an advanced Type II rather than a Type 0 civilization tends to stymie our progress but not that of a Type II civilization.

From the perspective of our own planet, "peak environment" and a return to primitive times appears to be in the cards when leaders consider short-term planning -- months rather than years, so perhaps without guidance from a more advanced civilization maybe our prospects are truly dim.

You write a very intelligent and thought-provoking essay, Lawrence.

Jim

Lawrence Crowell

I think that successful forms of intelligent life, which I think of as an IGUS (information gathering utilizing system) or collective, may recognize these limits and craft their future accordingly. It is hard to know to what extent free will exists, even though we have a strong intuitive sense it does exist. The human brain, and I think by extension any signaling network that has what we would call intelligent behavior, is probably far too complex for us to ever understand enough to answer the question. It amounts to trying to get the system to encode itself, which runs into issues with universal Turing machines and Godel's theorem. So the debate can be raised as to whether we are driven by instinctive behavior that over rides what we call intelligence.

Living systems are driven by the need to pass on their genetic information, or presumably with extraterrestrial life something analogous to that. This means amplifying those genes, which requires growth. We humans of course have been very good at this, for our ability to exploit our environment is extraordinary, and we have pursued exponential growth. Whether we are able to override the impulse along these lines is to be determined. If we are able to rein in our appetites then we might have some chance of surviving long into the future with a measure of decent civilized living.

The main point of my article is that it is not likely for intelligent life or IGUS to develop into these hyper-civilizations. It does not mean that intelligent life is doomed utterly, but it does mean such is limited and will pursue a better future if they work within or around these limits.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Lawrence,

Thank you, wonderful, profound essay!

You are absolutely correct write: «If we are able to rein in our appetites then we might have some chance of surviving long into the future with a measure of decent civilized living.»

Here the main idea - a "to rein ". It means to "limit" set "limits", set "frame".

This idea is important for physics, for the entire system of knowledge. Nobel laureate David Gross in an interview "What it consists of the SpaceTime" "Expert" magazine February 2013

"... String theory, which I have devoted most of his career, was not so revolutionary as we had hoped even fifteen or twenty years ago. It's just part of what I now conventionally call "general framework structure" of theoretical physics. While we do not know the structure of clear boundaries, clear mechanisms of cooperation between the different ways to describe it - string theories, field theory and other alternative concepts, but I hope that sooner or later we will be able to identify them. "

Therefore, the "frame of fundamental knowledge" is needed as physicists and all Humanity. Only in this way the development of Humanity may acquire resistance and go in the right direction all the more optimistic than now.

Version of such a "framework", the model of the Universe as a "complex simplicity", I gave in my essay "Absolute generating structure" and the development of ideas in the following essay "It from Delta-Logit"

I think that physicists and poets should be a unity framework model of the World (Universe), which carries all the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (Edmund Husserl).

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Lawrence Crowell

String theory probably represents some aspects of the universe. I think there are stringy aspects to the universe, and interestingly AdS/CFT has found its way into solid state physics. D-branes are condensates similar to Fermi surfaces and this physics is emergent in solids.

The limits imposed on us are ultimately by nature. Nature is what dictates what it is that we can both know as well as what we can control. We humans have been overly enamored with our abilities and our ideological systems. This is something we need to grow out of. A type of maturity is what is urgently needed.

Lawrence Crowell

Erratum for FQXi paper.

I wrote in my paper:

This means the WDW state vector is in a Hilbert space H = H_AâŠ--I + I + H_B ...

The definition of the Hilbert space is wrong. This is a split decomposition of the space and should read

This means the WDW state vector is in a Hilbert space H = H_AâŠ--I + IâŠ--H_B and ...

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Lawrence,

Contrary to the current trend of speculating on the idea of the world as a simulation, you explored the cosmic physical limits of this idea. I think this is a realistic position, since we can go as far as we want by accepting that the world is a simulation. Science is not about going as far as we want, but only as far as physics allows us, which is your position. I also found refreshing the proposed resolution to the Fermi's paradox. Very well written work!

Best regards,

Cristi

Lawrence Crowell

This is an aspect of my argument, and I maintain that our limitations and I think the limitations of any intelligent life in the universe, are what give a degree of confidence in the objective nature about what it is that we can observe and say about nature. The universe in effect determines what is observably real, not mental beings of any kind, whether humans in the distant future or extra terrestrial beings of some sort.

This does not necessarily mean we humans are doomed exactly, though it probably does mean our existence is both limited and of finite duration. If we can't do things like generate our own universe by appealing to the multiverse then our existence is probably impossible in a trillion years. Of course a trillion years is an awfully long time; even a million years is pretty long!

Cheers LC