Thanks, Akinbo.

I appreciate the dialogue so need to worry about "rambling" on. I think I see what you're model is getting at, but I don't know if it is as intuitively/aesthetically attractive to me as some digital physics models... but that isn't to say that it doesn't have merit.

I guess in the set/network model I just described, the "distance" (or space) is only implied by the relationship between the objects in the universe and does not exist as a "substance" in the universe. So I guess from your model's perspective, it could not be an active participant in the creation or destruction of itself. But how would you feel about a set/network updating algorithm that existed outside the universe (but controlled the objects in the universe) but indirectly referenced "distance" (i.e. network or connection distance) when updating the model (i.e. causing movement)? Would "distance" be a "participant" in that case, from your perspective?

I agree that this does sound like it differs from relativity and lends itself more to QM experiments that seem to disprove realism, but I think an updating algorithm to a network model could still yield phenomenon that could be described as "gravitational waves"... not that I have generated this model:) But I'm sure modeling gravitational waves in a simulation on a computer is doable. The question would just be whether you could make it an emergent phenomenon in the model or whether you had to explicitly code it in. If you could make gravitational waves emergent in a network/set model, this would lend credence to the set/network theory(from the gravitational waves perspective), while if you had to explicitly code gravitational waves in to your model, you haven't really shown/proven anything.

Talk to you soon,

Jon

How it cannot be better when you say it yourself?

Smiles :)

- Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Hi Jon,

Whether there is a substance or not at the bottom, as for the colors I belief, that we can only objectify the relations between different objects. (I just found out last week, that this makes me a 'structural realist' like Eddington). Elementary particle maybe would be a could candidate for the substance. But fermi or bose statistics seems to indicate, that elementary particles have no individual being and might be defined only by their interaction (relation) to other objects.

That does not mean, that the structure is necessarily paradoxical. Maybe mathematics is wrong trying to build up everything from one set of axioms. "I am not decidable." is not decidable within the axiomatic system, but it is true, if we view it from outside (adding a new axiom). So: "You don't know yourself, but I know you, what you are to me. Although I do not know myself (completely)."

The network of sheep has his parallels in attempts of rebuilding reality by network of qbits. Early attempts have been made by Finkelstein, Penrose and also somehow different von Weizsäcker. From this contest I think D'Ariano is working on that line. To me these attempts have been to 'atomistic' in their thinking. (What is wrong with that?).

In my attempt I take the qbit serious in its informational character. Information always being defined as a relation of two terms or concepts in the sense of my previous post. The qbit has its values + or - depending on the direction we measure. So their must exist a state of the measurement subject (apparatus or field as I call it), which can distinguish these different directions (the are orthogonal). The time development however must have the symmetry of the qbit space SU(2) and what is really measurable is only the relative angle of the spin and the measurement observable. That all so far to advertise my essay a bit.

Best wishes

Luca

Dear Jonathan,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

    Jon: In reply; from my Essay Forum discussion page (see link at foot):

    Thanks Jonathan; I very much appreciate your interest. My work it is indeed intended to be serious. A local-realistic unification and examination of four experiments: challenging Bell's views and his conclusions re nonlocality ... all in the context of Trick or truth: the [as supposed] mysterious connection between physics and mathematics.

    So I hope you'll be back soon with some questions! For I'd welcome the chance to show you that: (i) the maths is little more than high-school stuff; (ii) the defining of new things is little more than my ensuring that all definitions are cleaned-up mathematically.

    In this way I'd expect you to find that long conversations might be reserved for areas of common interest; like the benefit of videos/lecture/pictures/animations. Which all sounds more like your department and some near-future co-operation.

    To that end, my immediate goal is to invite serious critiques of my local-realistic work so that it is clear what I must fix/improve. The point being that the four unified experiments do deliver the results that I claim: for all my results are consistent with actual experiments; or consistent with accepted quantum theory where experiments have not yet been done.

    With my thanks again; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

    Jon,

    The above 1.99 stuff was a nervous pitch from a first-time script-writer (me) to a recognised movie-mogul (you).

    For, from my readings of your work: it seemed certain to me that we had one thing in common -- we do not easily accept traditional responses that ruffle our intuitions!

    In the given case some would have us believe that:

    1.99 = 2.00 = 2.01.

    PS: As your dispatched my script to the bin, did you note that the first given number always ends in 9 and that "unlimited repetition" implies a frequency and a wavelength?

    Cheers mate, and for another time; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

    Hey Jon,

    Thanks again for your very thoughtful and stimulating remarks and questions on my essay. I just wanted to let you know I posted some responses (sorry it took me a while!). And also thanks again for your movie and contributions here. Looking forward to speaking with you again,

    Steve

      Jon,

      My apologies for the tardiness of my reply. You made a post in my forum and I did not notice it since it was a reply to an old thread.

      I'll repeat it here

      "Do you think it is possible that we may be living in a finite and discrete universe that could be described in an informational way? Do you think we could make more progress in our understanding of physics if we looked towards computer programs/simulations, instead of new sets of math equations, for explaining phenomenon? How much complexity do you think is in the universe, and how much of it is compressible?"

      I think the universe is finite. I cannot say anything about whether or not it is discrete. I'm not even sure how the word "discrete" would be applied to the universe. Is the universe a discrete solution to a massive system of wave equations? Some people argue that the wave equation for a Bose-Einstein condensate at 2.7 K describes the universe.

      How would a computer program or simulation help? Wouldn't it need to be given rules to obey? To me, that would still constitute mathematics. I think you are asking about emergent behavior ... Even that can be described by statistics although then there may not be a method of cleanly connecting the various laws to the results or to the other laws.

      The universe is a complex as it needs to be to be the universe:-)

      Regarding your essay ... it was interesting enough ... the numerous quotes were very telling ... which one is the actor and which one is the physicist? It made me think of a book titled "Physics on the Fringe". It was about some amateur scientists. I have not read it but the reviews were interesting. The author compared a meeting of the amateurs with a meeting of cosmologists and she concluded that she could not tell who was who:-)

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

        Thanks, Joe. So many essays to read, not nearly enough time. I hope I have the requisite understanding to give you some good feedback. Any thoughts on Digital Physics?

        Jon

        Thanks for the response, Gary.

        I'm not sure if you could actually have a continuous universe that was finite. I assume you are imaging a continuous universe that is bounded, say by the observable universe or something similar. A math analogy: You might say that the interval of real numbers between 0 and 1 is continuous and finite, but I would say that you have the infinite in the form of the infinitesimal because you implicitly believe in infinite precision non-computable real numbers when you believe in the continuum. Infinite precision non-computable real numbers are what make up the continuum in a mathematical sense.

        A discrete universe would rule out a continuous wave, just like a computer couldn't actually contain the infinite amount of information needed to represent every point on a curve... although it could contain the finite algorithm to generate the wave to any desired level of accuracy... It just can't contain the non-compuable, which is what makes the continuum the continuum.

        Jon

        Thanks for the response, Gary.

        I'm not sure if you could actually have a continuous universe that was finite. I assume you are imaging a continuous universe that is bounded, say by the observable universe or something similar. A math analogy: You might say that the interval of real numbers between 0 and 1 is continuous and finite, but I would say that you have the infinite in the form of the infinitesimal because you implicitly believe in infinite precision non-computable real numbers when you believe in the continuum. Infinite precision non-computable real numbers are what make up the continuum in a mathematical sense.

        A discrete universe would rule out a continuous wave, just like a computer couldn't actually contain the infinite amount of information needed to represent every point on a curve... although it could contain the finite algorithm to generate the wave to any desired level of accuracy... It just can't contain the non-compuable, which is what makes the continuum the continuum.

        Jon

        Jon,

        You should exchange comments with Akinbo Ojo if you have not already done so.

        Now I understand what you mean. I will maintain that I think it is finite - as demonstrated by the Hubble Bubble. I will also state that I think it is continuous. My justification for this is that the electron is considered to be a point particle.

        Essentially, I am an Aether believer. The fact that electrons are viewed as a distribution around a proton to me indicates that the vacuum is the source of the electrons and they simply rise up as needed due to the presence of a proton ... Basically, I think the electron is a vibration of the vacuum.

        I don't think the universe needs to compute anything ... it simply is.

        Best Regards and Good Luck,

        Gary Simpson

          Jon; some new comments on my Essay Forum might interest you. Or maybe just start there with some pressing questions? (Remembering that the maths is not difficult.)

          With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum.

          I give you a mathematical argument and you come back with the Hubble Bubble!? :) I don't even know how that relates, partially because I had never heard of it, and partially because my skimming of Wikipedia didn't give me too much insight. I sort of get your point with the point electron, but I would say that if you inspect these models that you think are accurate representations, you have to decide whether you believe if any continuous thing that the models represents is always fully formed (infinite) or if they are generated from a calculation done using the model (finite). Again, a wave equation or distribution is fine from a digital perspective if things are only discretely generated into existence, but if they exist always and continuously, I think you have the infinite on your hands.

          Anyway, I have talked with Akinbo, but he didn't convince me that I couldn't have movement in a digital universe, although I did enjoy his essay. (see our discussion above) Long live digital physics:)

          Hubble Bubble ... yes. It is the observable universe. It is everything within a radius of roughly 13.8 billion light years. My argument is why should I believe there is anything outside of that? The standard thinking is that we cannot be at the center of the universe and therefore the observed expansion must be the same everywhere. The reason for following that line of thinking is that scientists do not want to make the same mistake of geo-centrism made prior to Copernicus. I will reply that what is observed does not require that we be at the center. It only requires that we are moving slowly compared to those objects at the edge of the visible universe. This points out the essence of the math vs physics question. Observation has been replaced by speculation ... even good and reasonable speculation is still speculation.

          Best Regards and Good Luck,

          Gary Simpson

          4 days later

          Dear Jonathan,

          Thank you for pointing out your interesting video. Did you submit it at the FQXI video contest?

          There is some form of determinism-geometry-topology-algebra that underlies the observables of multiple qubits. This has been my topic with collaborators for the last 10 years. Also the structure of primes plays a role, there are a few references in my essay that, I admit, may not be so easy to read in a single shot.

          Good to have your essay that provides a different taste to the contest.

          Best,

          Michel

            Jonathan,

            At last a serious attempt to comprehensively tackle an important and potentially dead boring subject in a way guaranteed to keep the reader awake and wondering what planet he's on. Quite brilliant. When does it go on general release?

            Can I assume you saw my own video? a full length feature film on how the whole universe works, blue shifted to gamma to compress to a 9 minute run time?

            (if not; How universes work in 9 mins. ).

            Thanks for your nice comments on my string. perhaps you or a friend can tell me if you understood my essay, video and quasi QM papers, and if so explain them to me in words or pictures of any number of syllables but without using dodgy manipulation of ancient Arabic symbols or Tarot cards? (I think those should come later).

            Real nice job.

            Peter