… “Digital Physics”: An Essay That Uses Poetic License to Discuss A Few Theories in the Movie… by Jonathan Khanlian

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

[Jon. Buddy. Psst. Mate. It's Chevy. Undercover again. I got that old job 'cos I was Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation's top apprentice; BA is family. And Good On You Old Son: But it's impossible for me to throw out ideas and questions; I got heaps of 'em.]

But, Jon, seriously: when you visit over there, it's not like there's actual technical work to critique. If you went to a good high-school, it's all high-school maths! (And remember what got writ in that classic, Jon? 'KISS; keep it simple son'.) Love, Chevy

Jon,

I personally find it harder to ask new questions than to repeat well-known answers. Thus I find your questions a very attractive part of your essay. Sometimes a question will invoke a new perspective or realization, and sometimes the question will combine concepts in a way that illuminates these concepts.

Your question 4: 'If quantum mechanics is a world where things can be both 'yes' and 'no' at the same time ( then Zen... )' is phrased to appear to imply "physical world" but I think your question shows that considering QM a "formal world" makes much more sense.

Similarly, question 6: How can 1-D info in DNA/mRNA be transferred into a 3-D protein in a 2-D holographic universe? This again emphasizes (to me) that mRNA is real and is 3-D and proteins are real and are 3-D while the 1-D string of info was a formal conception and the 2-D holographic universe is merely a formal construction.

I believe these are valuable questions that shed light on complex topics. Thank you for them.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Actually I first tried to get a relation between the most general shape, only to end up on the simple line. After discovering the possible relations, now you can generalize to multidimensional with a generalized shape with generally the same outcome as the line.

I include an attachment to clarify the particle setups(distance) in the programAttachment #1: dist.png

Jon,

Thanks for dropping comments on my forum. I have attempted a reply.

On a movie screen like yours, motion is digital with a pixel changing from the background pixel to the pixel of the moving object. If space is a substance made of 'pixels' (like my extended points), how would motion be accomplished. As you move do the pixels constituting you the moving object change their nature to that of the background pixels, while the background pixels in your direction of motion change their nature to the nature of the pixels constituting the moving body?

How can a line constituted by pixels be cut if the pixels are infinite in number and cannot be cut since there will then always be a pixel at the point of cutting incidence? If the number of pixel is on the other hand finite, what can lie between them? Certainly, not space since space is made of the pixels?

These are some of what I address in my essay. You are welcome back to read again when you can spare the time. Thanks.

Akinbo

Hi Jon,

Sorry I took so long to answer. I tried to relate my question to your questions in the sense, that I tried to make a connection between the language of a statement and the meta language that describes the meaning of the statement. But did not succeed.

So finally it might just be related to the color question. Sorry that I use your forum for that!

Let the set A contain two sheep. From the point of view of A A cannot distinguish the two sheep. It is symmetric. But we can. Maybe one sheep is black, the other white. Or one is bigger, the other smaller. In a way the two sheep must have other properties, that can distinguish them, that are not defined in A or by A. If the sheep are completely identical, they have at least to different space locations, by which we can differentiate between them.

What is with space itself? What additional properties can distinguish between 2 space points?

What with a qbit? The qbit has the full SU(2) symmetry. What distinguishes two different states?

Logically speaking the set can be seen as the predicate of a proposition. Its elements are the possible subjects: "A sheep is an animal." The predicate could also be called a term. In the greek philosophy eidos. To specify what this term mean, contains, we need other term (eidos), that are not defined by the term itself. The relation between different terms (eidos) is what we call mathematics. Formally it is possible creating terms, that contain themselves, leading to the well known paradox. In the philosophy of Aristoteles the paradox do not arise, because he finally end up with the substance. He defined substance as something, that can only be the subject and not the predicate of statement. The substance is what I would call reality, or factuality.

On the way down from the eidos to the factual we face the problem how the general becomes a singular. And how we could even speak about the singular (factual), since it is singular.

In the other direction, we have Humes problem of how eidos could be derived from singular facts.

Hope this makes some sense.

Luca