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.

    John,

    I am surprised and pleased that you've read the book so quickly.

    You say I like eigenvalue functions. Not so much. I simply find them necessary to treat when addressing physicists. And you say that they require nature to be made of linear relationships, and ask how we know the universe is everywhere linear. My belief is that reality is essentially nonlinear and I've treated this elsewhere. Including the QSLR reference [2] in my current essay. This is a much later treatment than that of the book. For example, see [link:www.vixra.org/abs/1408.0005]Quantum Spin and Local Reality:A Quantum Theory of Events[/link] (page 105 to 111) for a more up-to-date view of eigenvalues.

    Additionally in my 2013 essay Gravity and the Nature of Information on page 4, I show the key nonlinear relation for which I've developed an iterative scheme. You can't quite tell from the finite diagram, but things head for infinity amazingly fast. So I disagree that linearity is a significant constraint on my theory.

    The robot was of course a vehicle to simply show how an algorithmic-based system, not itself conscious, could arrive at a theory of physics. I wanted to remove the 'magic' or 'mystery' from the process of math and physics. You mention the robot doing something "new". Without going back to check I suspect I meant through simple application of a random number generator to shuffle previous algorithms. I can check this if it's important.

    You mention fractal math and trees. My goal in the 1970s (this book was 1979 with a few chapters appended in 2009) was to show how numbers arise from physical reality, thus how numbers can be generated from measurements, based on number generating measurement apparatus, and how from these numbers one can arrive at features, and even a "best" feature set, or eigenvector. Several of the topics you mention are outside of this goal, and were not considered.

    You say I assume the ability to digitize the universe. That's clear. Thus reducing, not the universe, but the representation of the universe, i.e., the 'map', to numbers. Recall that Kronecker said "God made the integers; all the rest is the work of man." On this basis my main problem was to show how integers arise from the physical world, which I believe I've done. I do believe "All the rest is the work of man", and as such it's already in the books, I did not feel the need to derive it all, up to and including continuity as limit cases. In short the goal was very specific, so it did not cover the waterfront.

    You say "it seems you have no place for the continuous as one of the major components of the universe." If you look again at diagram on the first page of my current essay, you will see that what's being measured (at the far left) is undefined. It could be continuous, it could be discrete. John, it looks like you might wish to read Gene Man's World available from the same source. That one is focused on continuity and consciousness (as of 2008). Specifically, Automatic Theory was intended to show how an automata (the robot), based on actual math, could derive the theory of physics without consciousness. [link:www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=klingman+Gene+Man%27s+World] Gene Man's World[/link] is the basis of my theory of consciousness.

    From your remark about free will, I suspect you will enjoy that one better.

    Thank you for the effort you put into this, and for your very thoughtful feedback.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    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?

    John.

    I read and considered your essay. It seems to me that you are saying that our mathematics is the result of our sensory perception. I think I would argue it is more universal though. If there is only one truth, there may be many paths to that truth but there is still only a single truth. I think it more likely that our senses and our perceptions are aligned with truth and that allows our survival. Mathematics then is created out of necessity to describe what is observed. Thereby also enhancing survival. Occasionally new mathematics is created to explain a new observation and then that mathematics makes a new prediction. If that prediction proves to be true then the validity of the math is strengthened.

    Fractals might not be as significant as you think. All exponential type functions are self-replicating. Consider the derivative d/dx of exp(x). It is exp(x). A fractal is simply more of a geometric function or a shape as opposed to a single valued function.

    BTW, I don't think I would consider Trigonometry to be Geometric Algebra. It is an entire field developed by Hamilton and others. Fractals might simply be exponentials in Geometric Algebra.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

      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.

      Thanks for the clarification.

      Line 11-12 on page 3 ... this was the source of my Trigonometry comment.

      Lines 15-19 of Part 2 Basics are what made me think that you view math and operations as the result of perception.

      Fractals as exponentials ... yes. If you can define the vectors that produce a fractal shape, you can multiply that base function by a quaternion to produce a similar fractal shape that is of a different size and/or rotated. The exponential of a quaternion allows that to be done as a matrix multiplication.

      I think some of the misunderstanding is simply semantic. Did Lorentz create the transform or discover it? The Physics was there waiting to be discovered but the act of discovery on his part required creation of the mathematical structure or concept. Physics is natural. Mathematics is human.

      Best Regards,

      Gary Simpson

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

      This is not my view. Both are natural.

      6 days later

      Dear John ! Your essay will help me to clarify many important aspects of my own work in applied social science. Physics and maths are natural and the human experience is also natural; human-free-choice is also about accepting the natural laws (principles) and not to invest into super-natural speculations. CONGRATS, you have written a great essay about our mathematical universe.Best: stephen

      Many thanks for introducing me to your approach of survivalist morality, John.At the IA ,I will further study your proposals, e.g. for the US, EU. In the the Goal of Life Essay, you write about the key paradox='as life advances it must become a more efficient user of resources'; this is the ethical imperative that human societies on this globe must learn about the natural construction principles of reality. With reference to this quote, you will receive a little book gift to your blueridge.edu. Best: stephen

      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.

      You are a real person, you are not an abstract we.

      Regards,

      Joe Fisher

      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.

      16 days later

      Hello John,

      I really appreciated your comment in the conclusion that 'the goal should be to make the universe more conceptually understandable'. This should apply to the physics of the very large and the very small.

      I was not clear about your meaning when you said in your abstract that 'several conceptual mysteries may be better modeled by using mathematics as an observation.'

      Regards

      Richard Lewis

        Dear Sir,

        According to Ayurveda - the ancient system of medicine, the capability to perceive through sense organs is the definition of life. Reality is whatever exists (has a confined structure that evolves in time and is perceptible), is intelligible (perceptible/knowable) and communicable (describable using a language as defined in our essay). Number is a perceivable property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,..n depending upon the sequence of perception of one's. Mathematics is the quantitative description of Nature. Thus, it explains only one part. Another part is described by physics, which has meaning only when observed (perceived). Thus, you have correctly held that fundamental principles of life and physics are same.

        You description of division is correct. But there are extensions as described in our essay. Geometry is the measurement of closed lines (depicting area or volume) in suitable units. Since these are closed, these are analog internally and digital externally. Space, Time and coordinates arise from our concept of interval and sequence. When the interval is related to objects, we call it space. When the interval is related to events, we call it time. When we describe inter-relationship of objects or events, we describe the sequence by coordinates. Directions are arrangements of the sequences of intervals of objects in space. Dimension is the perception of differentiation between the internal structural space and external relational space of objects. Since we perceive through electromagnetic interaction, where the electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicularly, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. These are invariant under mutual transformation (if we treat length as breadth or height, the object is not affected) and can be resolved into 10 different combinations. Regarding measurement, we have extended your thought in our essay.

        Regards,

        basudeba

          Your view of the hypothesis statements are much related to the scenic abstractions of life and great numbering in perceivable theories.

          Hands-On!

            Perhaps I should expand on one of the examples about a conceptual mystery such as the double slit experiment that math may show some insight to a better model. That the math of quantum mechanics (QM) works has been shown. However, the mystery is why? Thus, several concepts (interpretations) such as wave--particle--duality and the Bohm Interpretations have been conceived. But both (all) start from concepts and try to derive the Schrodinger equation (the math part of QM that works). But suppose we start with the observation that the math works and try to conceptually model why it works. Ask ``what is the math doing?'' Schrodinger equation defines the total energy as the sum of the potential and kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is the inertial mass energy. The potential energy derives from the potential field (whatever a field is) that imparts (somehow - by contact or action at a distance?) energy onto the (inertial) mass. These energies seem to have some relation to wave dynamics. Our scale observes waves in mediums that have unbounded differentiability (continuous). So I suggest the wave and its medium is real (yes I know there is argument here.) But then general relativity also mathematically suggests gravitational ether. A gravitational ether (called ``space'' today) is influenced by matter and influences matter through a gravitational field that exerts a force by contact through its divergence. Just what is need for the photon inducing potential energy Photon diffraction and interference .

            The universe has 2 components - discrete matter and a continuous plenum (gravitational ether, space) and their interaction.

            Well, why not?

            Basudeba

            I had noted your essay. I'm unsure what to comment on it. So, I'll start with your comment here.

            Reality to me is whatever influences my survival even if I don't know it is doing so. Humans now measure many things that were unknown a few centuries ago. There may be other things that influence our survival of which we are ignorant. So relationships such as spirits and souls are real to me. Because we cannot yet create a universe, I'm sure there are such other things.

            I think concepts that can predict observations are clear. If some concepts are defined differently in separate places (sometimes in the same paper), the concept is vague. For example, what is your ``space''? Is it a backdrop used to measure such as a coordinate system (you mention ``coordinate system'' separately but suggest space measures distance)? How about the general relativity concept of a medium (gravitational ether) that provides a gravitational field that influences matter. How about the void between matter as some ancient Greeks would have it. Or is ``space'' the left hand parameter in the GR field equation - and abstraction of calculating value, only. I'm unsure from your essay about what you consider a line (surface, volume) to be. Is a line a series of points or an extension? I think one of you other commenters was addressing this. Note I differentiate between the measurement and the abstraction such as saying a ``clock''(right hand side) and time (left hand side). Saying a clock implies some form of standard of duration measurement that I view as a set of problems requiring advancement in physics understanding.