Mathematics characteristics are universe characteristics by John C Hodge

Thanks for your kind sentiments.

What is the web address of your FQXi paper on treating the ``wave medium'' of QM and gravity?

The mechanism is the closed--loop control system (defined as a feedback loop). The Feedback acts to reduce the variability of the output. The example of the theoretical temperature of the universe being 2.718 K may at first sight to be an open loop. But it is closed because the time (the control action) to output is dependent on the output (mass ejected). I understand there is a tendency to view the universe as having open loop systems such as the idea of cause and effect being a one--direction flow. If we consider the universe as one all connected, then it must consist of closed loops. (I suppose this is a subject of another paper.) Yes, I understand the idea of the horizon - but note I think the speed of plenum waves determine connectedness not of light and the idea that one part of the universe connects to another which is connected to another that may be outside the horizon of the first. The problem for physics is to identify the loops and control action. I think the control action is usually distance or time. This is the special place of space and time in our physics. That is, for each cause--effect, there is postulated to be a physical closed loop rather than an open loop. Beyond this rather abstract discussion lies the identification of the loops - which is physics goal (well at least my goal).

I have read your essay. I have ordered your referenced book. Perhaps I should have commented earlier.

further reply to Edwin Klingman

Edwin Klingman

I have read most or your book ``The Automatic Theory of Physics'' that you referenced in your FQXi paper. Your book is very much on topic of this contest. Therefore, I think it appropriate to discuss it. It also forms one of the approaches to this topic. Overall I'm a bit disappointed.

You like eigenvalue functions. But these require nature to be made of linear relationships. How do we know the universe is everywhere linear? A later chapter addresses nonlinear possibilities, but these are also limited. Further the development of the validity of commutative and distributive may provide too strict a limitation. You briefly introduce noncommutitive operators such as in Quantum Mechanics. Concatenation and objects such a rubrics cube show noncommutative operators exist. Physics has examples where the measured values are way too large - Why? I suggest the feedback mechanism should be part of the discussion.

The robot can use only the math we now have. Consider the fractal math development. Fractal math was unknown and not considered by your book. Yet it is seen everywhere in nature - I mention trees. Suppose there is another type of math operation not yet known. I suggest a ``free will'' operation may exist. Like fractals, its development will probably be obvious after it is developed.

The ``basic goal'' is defined as to arrive at the simplest structure has already been achieved - by religions. Human know what they can predict, God fills in the remaining parts. It is complete and self--consistent. But it does little to advance man's survival or man's need to predict as part of survival.

Entropy math is used. Physics has many issues with the concept of entropy. Human knowledge advances with the input of energy from the Sun. So entropy increase rate is increased by increased knowledge.

I see the #5 robot property in Ch. 54 is of producing ``new'' action. Does this include using new mechanisms (machines) that are currently unknown? How are they designed? I suggest it cannot be linear or be treated wit forms of nonlinear action. It requires creativity, which is a random introduction of step functions - creativity and free will, which is unknown.

This brings up the subject of determinism and free will which you and I introduce but so far no other.

Your goal assumes the ability to digitize the universe. That is reducing the universe to numbers including the continuous. It seems you have no place for the continuous as one of the major components of the universe. Fair enough, but then you have no conversation of the standard measures needed for such a conversion. There are many problems with standard measures as I point out. These problems restrict the ability of your robot to work.

Gibbs and others have pointed the nature of today's science to be a social structure trying to maintain the status quo. But big advances happen anyway and are made by a radical redefinition of terms. The robot approach seems to be maintenance of the social structure that may not make the big (step function) leaps (yes I understand the introduction of Fourier analysis may be an attempt - but until you have the result Fourier analysis doesn't function). Perhaps your `` intelligent machines'' are scientists obeying the status quo rules of getting papers published.

You statements on P.406 echoes mine on the continuous. The ``embarrassing theory of everything'' is why I took the tack I did.

Klingman

Thanks

Links to my effort my effort.

The book I am thinking of getting is ``The Gene Man Theory''. I didn't find it on Amazon and $100 seems a bit tough.

Do you have any papers on the web? I looked in academia.edu, found 3 on Bell and spin in viXra. None on arXiv.

A decade ago I had one in New Astronomy as I was getting my feet in cosmology.

Then I started to deviate from the status quo but arXiv still accepted a few until I started to really deviate. Academia.edu has some. Today I publish mostly in Intellectual archive. Arp, Gibbs, and others are correct. I'm thinking of updating my book the Theory of Everything.

My story on QM in grad school is fairly typical. I am conceptually oriented. I asked the prof for a conceptual view of QM. His reply was Feynman's reply.

After thinking I had a handle on cosmology, I attacked the small with photon interference. The idea is to use classical methods (stay away from all the assumptions of QM where the map fuzzies the issues). I had some success. The view of the single photon interference was to say a laser doesn't produce just one at a time. For the last year + I've been attempting a simulation with only one photon in the experiment at a time. No joy.

Then this contest and your paper happened.

The contest crystallized my view of math and physics and the skepticism of transformations. With Bohm the EPR and Bell's inequality are irreverent. All that needs done is to invoke some aspect of Bohm and Bell goes away.

I noticed you have some facility with QM. Let me propose a task to interpret the Schrödinger equation in a classical form (not a Hamiltonian) complete with classical interpretation (F=ma type). This is back to grad school for me, but you know the calculations now. My approach has been to start with the Diffusion equation (you may note I use the version of the heat equation in my previous papers) and V is calculated from masses in my \rho field, \nabla \rho produces the force on the particle, and the \Psi is a real (my plenum) field (density field in the diffusion equation).

Could you add to this to produce a QM Schrödinger equation with real waves?

Of interest?

No. I suggest math is a part of our universe like gravity is part of our universe. I also note instruments such as electric field (which our senses don't detect) measuring equipment provides input to our discovered math.

I find people are having difficulty with my concept. Math or more precisely the relations implied by math are in our universe. We use sticks to build a fire. We conceive of gravity to describe some objects motion. We use scratches on a paper to describe more complex aspects of the universe. Because it is a part of the universe even without us, a discovered math relation implies a universe relation that we may not have seen before such as tree branching and data compression of fractals.

Our survival and evolution has selected those aspects of us that aligns or uses nature to most advantage. Our truth is not a snake's truth.

``Describe'' not exactly. Math is used by physics to predict observations/events. Religion has described for a long time - predict what we know and God does the rest.

The physics makes the new prediction. The discovered math was there all along like gravity. Math is discovered not created.

Fractals are not exactly self-replicating (reproducing) they are self-similar. An example Geometrically if a square divided into 4 equal squares each of which is divided into 4 equal square (16 smaller squares) each of which is divided into 4 smaller squares (64 small squares), etc. Interesting question - Is there a smallest or largest square? Physics thinks the plank length is the smallest - fractals suggests no. An algebraic example would be the Mandelbrot set.

`` Trigonometry to be Geometric Algebra'' I didn't say it was, did I? Trig is the transformation of geometry to algebra calculations - not a vector space necessarily.

`` Fractals might simply be exponentials in Geometric Algebra.'' What?

Thanks for your comment.

``Physics is natural. Mathematics is human.''

This is not my view. Both are natural.

I've retired. New email Jchodge@frontier.com.

thanks

Whether we are abstract of not, whether our universe is abstract or not isn't even a speculation much less a hypothesis. At very best it is metaphysics. Therefore, it shows no promise of providing some testable hypothesis much less a prediction of some observation or something useful to humanity. Although there are many things outside our ken, we progress by taking the problems we can sense and making the nest new prediction.

L. B. Crowell's paper in this contest has an interesting question: ``Does this mean that older forms of mathematics will disappear?'' It suggests math has an evolution or selection--of--the--fittest history in human discovery.

Science has precipitated out of philosophy to be that part of human knowledge that predicts observations. Does science extend as far as metaphysics? Likewise math as we know it today has become the usefulness of counting and geometry. That is, math is the result of a selection of the useful methods (evolution). You noted logic has not been as useful as counting math. Math and logic have not yet reconciled (yes, I know about Russell and Whitehead's book but I like others think he had inadvertently assumed the counting process in his set development.)

One of the characteristics of today's usage of math is the concept that a (counting) number that represents a physical object can be negative. The number system I used as a hunter was one, couple, few, many. We had more need to characterize snow conditions than numbers. Farmers such as in the Bible tend to use 40 to mean many but uncounted. The later development of merchants resulted in the concept of assets as positive number and liabilities a positive number. By forming an equation whose right hand side (rhs) is real/measured quantities with an operation (assets minus liabilities or clock and rulers converted to a geometry) and whose left hand side (lhs) is an abstract (transformation) quantity (net worth, space, time). The interpretation of the rhs is easy. The interpretation of the lhs has great difficulty that admits a negative physical object.

We are much too careless in the interpretation of the lhs, negative objects, division, zero, and infinity (unbounded). Perhaps the hunters were right - when we reach the limit of our concepts we should say ``many'' and leave it at that.

However, set and, in particular, group theory seems to have some usefulness in identifying patterns in the stable points of energy/mass assembly (particles). Like with the periodic table, identifying holes in the group predicted particles and the particle characteristics. This math suggests a still finer structure.

Again, I like the idea that the math we use is a result of the selection from among nature's characteristics.