Hi Armin,

I really appreciate your response! My girlfriend described it as "kind and heartwarming" which I totally agree with. Thanks for signing up for the movie's email list as well. It has been difficult to drum up support for "Digital Physics", given its uniqueness, so your enthusiasm and interest in the movie is really appreciated.

So you want to know why an actuary, someone who should know something about (difficult) odds, embarked on the daunting project of making a feature film? It's actually a simple answer: I went into it with an unrealistic model of expectations... a naïve model... a model that underestimated the work involved... a model based on one scenario where everything goes according to plan and you don't give yourself a heart attack;) But seriously, filmmaking is a lot more accessible these days and so is the education around it, so if you're interested in getting into the art form, don't over think it... just dive into the learning and creating process... make something, critique it, get feedback, and then do it again. You already have the music side covered, and audio is more than half of the film experience. I recommend playing around with Adobe After Effects. I bet you could make some great pieces of visual art to compliment your piano playing. If you can do that, you're a filmmaker. End of story. QED. Worry about financing, locations, actors, scripts, etc. at a later date.

Now on to the science...

I checked out your youtube presentation on a novel approach for making sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation. (I also enjoyed your "sunset landscape" piano piece. I pictured George Seurat's "Sunday Afternoon..." but with slightly warmer sunset tones.) Your talk about how the surface to volume ratios of smaller objects of the same shape are greater and therefore more 2-D reminded me of how properties of a substance can change when they are in small quantities due to the fact that the substance has a higher proportion of its molecules on its surface, and therefore a higher proportion are interacting with the substance's surrounding environment, not just with the molecules/atoms on the "interior" of the substance... whatever that word means to a Flantlander. (Actually, you talked about objects of the same "shape" in your discussion when discussing surface to volume ratios, but I think that term is a little vague if we're dealing with a discrete atomic model. I think trying to derive a more precise notion of "shape" in your discrete atomic model might even be insightful and help build out your theory a little more.) So some of the properties of the substance do not seem to be self-contained within the molecules themselves, but are properties that should be attributed to the interactive relationship between the substance and its environment. Could this stripping away of properties attributed to "things" be extended? Could more properties thought to be the properties of particles/matter really be looked at as properties that arise from interactive relationships? Could a non-physical, informational reality give rise to all the properties that we attribute to a physical world of particles? Maybe this viewpoint makes the "shut up and compute" reality of QM more intuitive. Maybe the world is purely mathematical/informational/formulaic/non-physical at its core. Information has no purpose/meaning/existence unless it is describing relationships... which I think is consistent with the viewpoint we extract from QM experiments. I think this also relates to the conversation I was having with Luca on the subjective nature of experiencing color.

I also liked your distinction between "potential" and "actual" in your quantum theory. It reminds me of my Aristotelian preference for potential infinite instead of actual infinite, but I will not go into anything on that matter here due to time constraints; I have to get to your actual FQXi essay at some point:)

Thanks again for your interest and support of "Digital Physics". Spread the word!

Jon

Hi Armin,

I am hoping a positive response to this essay and interest in the movie will help me get some support from the scientific and festival communities. Unlike "Particle Fever" (and the standard model of physics), "Digital Physics" (the movie and the theories) doesn't have quite the same established support in the scientific community, so your interest in the movie, as you so generously expressed here, is very critical to the film's success and is much appreciated. The more support I can drum up here, the easier it will be to get science organizations (including FQXi), universities, and film festivals to support movie screenings. Feel free to pass the movie trailer along and encourage others to read my essay and comment on it. Independent films, especially ones dealing with foundational science questions, need all the support they can get! :)

I hope the FQXi community support will come through!

Dear Jon,

Thank you for your response, as a matter of fact, I had been playing around a little with After Effects to see if I could create music videos consisting entirely of animated images appropriate to the music. My initial attempts proved to consume more time than I had available, so I had to set it on the back-burner.(I suspect the problem was fundamentally that my vision was too far beyond my ability). After this semester is over, I might just try again.

Concerning the Vaxjo talk, One of the few things I would change if I gave the talk today would be to cut out the part about the surface to volume ratio. Of course it is correct that smaller things have in general more surface to volume, and in that sense can be considered "more" two-dimensional, but that argument does not get me to the limit of infinite surface area to volume. In fact, I understood only later how to approach the limit, and it is not in terms of size but speed. Specifically, the limit at which v=c, is, in my view, also the limit in which spacetime itself vanishes. I believe that, at bottom, this is the reason why spacetime observers cannot transform to lightlike frames. If you are more interested in this aspect, there is a paper I have written but have not promoted much because in the absence of the context of my ideas in quantum mechanics it might seem too crazy, but here it is:

http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0076

A major problem with this view is that it requires that lightcones be topological objects whereas at present, most researchers, to the extent that they think about the topology of spacetime at all, consider it to be Euclidean (in which light cones have no topological significance). I believe that this current view is in error, and that the topology of spacetime is such that lightcones are in fact topological submanifolds. Proving this is a whole other ball-game, and, given how much I already have on my plate, probably not something I will get to attempt in the near future. But this is one of the theoretical implications of my idea.

As for the distinction between potentiality and actuality, yes, during the earlier stages I was in fact considering using Aristotle's distinctions. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, his distinctions do not have the right relationship to each other to be used in standard modal logic. Of course, one could just build up a different modal logic based on those distinctions, but the standard one has the advantage that all the model theory and semantics has already been worked out. I would rather not try to re-invent the wheel, if at all possible.

Finally, concerning the actual and potential infinities, while I am not constructing this framework for that purpose, I can imagine that an ultrafinitist might find ZFCD attractive because they can then put omega and all sets larger than it in the outer domain.

Best wishes,

Armin

Hi Jon,

I like your questions and thought for a while of how one could measure when "Pi-Time" would be. But while I was thinking Pi-Time has past. If knowbody has measured it, has it existed?

Anyhow I also would like to ask a question. Let's have a set with 2 elements and the permutation group as the symmetry group of the set. How can I distinguish this two elements?

Best wishes

Luca

    Hi Luca,

    I am a little confused (and also not too familiar). Aren't symmetry groups suppose to make the object under transformation invariant, and therefore sort of indistinguishable. Please explain more; I want to try to understand this question. I feel like it is related to our discussion about color... like how a rotation of of a person's color wheel may not be discernible by another person.

    Thanks,

    Jon

    Hi Jonathan,

    If you have not seen my essay, well here it is. Please check it out I think this is what you've been looking for. I will explain more once you get the basic idea.

    Nice movie, looks like a romantic comedy, but I don't think my wife would like it, the character looks too much like me!

    Essay

    Thanks and good luck.

      It looks like a "romantic comedy"?!?! Nnnooooooo... Well, that wasn't what I was going for, but I won't hold it against you:) I will check out your essay and try to comment on it sometime soon. Any thoughts on the mathematical aspects of my essay?

      Thanks,

      Jon

      I meant it "looks" like, not literally.

      Since your essay had an unusual format I thought maybe it is better to wait until you read mine before I compare my idea to yours(also answering your questions). However, I did say that you seem to be saying similar things to what I have shown, mainly the discrete vs continuous. Both can be done, but it seems spin and gravity are both tied to discrete and give better results.

      Hi Jon,

      Thanks for the lovely work! Is there a thinker anywhere that hasn't pondered something close to one of your questions? With some (alas), being less clever, moved on to higher orders?

      1. We can put question C) to bed: I'm its living proof; eg, degree-thesis handed to Professor as his clock (slowed by the speed of my approach for the prior 90 minutes) chimed the deadline.

      2. You might like this.

      The continuum of the reals refuted

      Abstract: A refutation of the claim that the system of real numbers has the property that between any two of them, no matter how close, there lies a third.

      Let 1.99 be the real precedent to 2, where bolding indicates unlimited repetition.

      Example: 1.99 = 1.999 = 1.9999 = etc. (A)

      Thus, for example:

      1.99+0.01 = 1.999+0.001 = 1.9999+0.0001 = etc. = 2. (B)

      Question: What is the intervening real?

      As Arnie says, "I'll be back!"

      With my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

      Hi Jon,

      Thanks for the lovely work! Is there a thinker anywhere that hasn't pondered something close to one of your questions? With some (alas), being less clever, moved on to higher orders?

      1. We can put question C) to bed: I'm its living proof; eg, degree-thesis handed to Professor as his clock (slowed by the speed of my approach for the prior 90 minutes) chimed the deadline.

      2. You might like this.

      The continuum of the reals refuted v.2

      Abstract: A refutation of the claim that the system of real numbers has the property that between any two of them, no matter how close, there lies a third.

      Let 1.99 be a real precedent to 2, where bolding indicates unlimited repetition.

      Example: 1.99 = 1.999 = 1.9999 = etc. (A)

      So: 1.99+0.01 = 1.999+0.001 = 1.9999+0.0001= etc. = 2. (B)

      Question: What is an intervening real?

      As Arnie says, "I'll be back!"

      With my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

        Jon: In relation to some of your questions and issues that appeal to me, I'm very much stimulated (and educated) by related discussions on Akinbo Ojo's Essay and Forum.

        Here's hoping he's a local realist like me! Regards; Gordon

        RE BELL AND LEGGET INEQUALITIES

        JON, a quote from your essay: "So how do physicists know that there isn't some underlying pseudorandom process that could reproduce the results of quantum mechanics in a classical, deterministic way? Even if Bell's Inequality rules out local hidden variables, this doesn't preclude determinism in general."

        [Note: "Digital Physics" takes place sometime in the late 1980s before Leggett's inequality was discussed, or I am sure Khatchig would have mentioned that in his Dedekind cut quote."

        Jon, since QM breaches both inequalities, you're welcome to have a look at my essay and critique it. There you'll see an interesting mix of "randomness and determinism" (some might say "a pseudorandom" process) emerging from fairly conventional (classical probability) theory.

        And though not quite in a "classical deterministic way":* enough to rule in "local hidden variables".

        * Recalling Bohr's insight, it cannot be "classical" in QM: In QM, "the result of a 'measurement' does not in general reveal some preexisting property of the 'system', but is a product of both 'system' and 'apparatus'," Bell (2004:xi- xii).

        With best regards from your local local-realist;

        Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

          Jon,

          The movie and essay are both stimulating and good contributions to this forum, and I hope the community shows strong support for it. Thanks for putting all the work into it. I liked how this takes place in the 80s in a setting where it was difficult to obtain the computer resources for his quest. It's a good reminder to us today to take advantage of the computing resources we have. Also, one of the ideas in the movie where he looks for patterns to discern physical concepts reminds me of some random walk research I did a number of years ago. To present these inspiring ideas in a dramatic environment where it takes itself seriously and yet to the point where we can have fun with it, strikes a delicate balance - but you achieved it. That is a form of brilliance too. I rate this highly, and hope to see more good things come of it - Thanks again, Steve

            Dear Jon,

            Thanks for this thought provoking piece. I agree with your statement, "... the use of mathematics based on infinite precision "real" numbers by physicists, are both born out of a desire to overcome a logical impediment and reach a desired goal. Both are created for convenience sake... In the case of physicists using continuous mathematics, this technique enables the power of the infinite to be harnessed in order to create elegant closes-formed analytic solutions. Both serve a purpose but NEITHER MAY BE LOGICAL"

            An example of such illogicality is the definition of the infinitesimal in calculus, that dx can be both equal to and unequal to zero, i.e. dx = 0 and dx тЙа 0 are both correct.

            I see motion in the trailer of your movie, Khatchig may have one or two things to contemplate about "digital motion after reading my essay.

            Regards,

            Akinbo

              Dear Mr. Khanlian,

              I thought that your colorful essay was exceptionally entertaining and I do hope that your movie is seen as often as the film THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, although, alas, perhaps by fewer discerning people.

              Warm Regards,

              Joe Fisher

                Hi Gordon,

                Not that I agree with this point of view, but I believe the traditional analysis view is that 1.99 is 2, so there is no number between them. Maybe what you are pointing out is the reason why they are considered to be the same number from that point of view... The same number can take on different appearances.

                But I still don't like that view point, because there still seems to be that infinitesimal difference. According to Akinbo's post below, I think this is a case where they assume "dx=0".

                Also, I wonder if NJ Wildberger would challenge you to define addition between your infinite reals a little more precisely.

                I'll come check out Akinbo Ojo's forum as soon as I get the chance.

                And as Arnie aslso said, "I'm a cop, you idiot! I'm detective John Kimble!"

                Thanks,

                Jon

                Hey Gordon

                I'll come over to your forum and check out your essay as soon as I get the chance... hopefully tonight. I hope I won't be in over my head. Sometimes it's easier for me to throw out ideas and questions, than to actually critique technical work.

                Jon

                There actually is a "love interest" in the movie, but I don't think people will refer to it as a romantic-comedy... unless they are talking about Khatchig's romantic view of truth in mathematics and physics.

                I started reading your essay last night but I got to the line segment part and then started getting a little confused. I hope to take another look at it soon, as I like how you are trying to start with the most simple model you could imagine.

                Jon

                I appreciate it, Steve. I'm glad you were able to make the Cast & Crew screening and that you enjoyed it so much!

                And to echo your point, can you imagine how much more difficult it would be for people to try to comprehend some of these complexity science ideas before the computer age? Could you imagine somebody analyzing Conway's game of life on a piece of grid paper before the computer age? "Hey guys, look at this crazy pattern that emerges from these simple rules. What, you don't believe me? Well just spend the next 100 hours convincing yourself by checking my work by hand." I bet Leibniz struggled to have anyone appreciate his "digital" vision. Hopefully as computers progress, "Digital Physics" (the movie and the theories) will win over more people.

                Jon

                "Digital Motion", Eh? Is this different than discretely changing positions?

                I'm going to try to get to your, Adel's, and Gordon's essays tonight. Your comment about "dx = 0 and dx тЙа 0" reminds me of the measure theory view that non-computable reals turn a line composed almost entirely of gaps into a continuum, yet the probability of choosing a specific real is 0.

                It feels like there are so many ways in which the assumption of real numbers lead to paradoxes, and yet the refutation of the reals via a reductio ad absurdum proof is never given much credence by almost all modern mathematicians.

                Maybe I'm just not understanding the concepts properly... although I've been thinking about it for way too long!

                Jon