Essay Abstract

The essay proposes an approach to the problem of divergence between the domain of the mathematical laws and that of aims and intentions based on the realtionship between reality and information. We show at first that a mathematical representation is possible only for those phenomena about which we have information. We shall then argue that, because of the discreteness of information, all mathematical model of reality must be discrete too. Since the latter includes phenomena such as subjective experiences, but also as motion and change, which we believe happen in a continuous dimension, we affirm that mathematical models cannot describe many of their aspects. Lastly, we suggest a hypothesis about why we have no information on intentionality and consciousness.

Author Bio

Giovanni Prisinzano studied Philosophy at the University and at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, where he graduated and obtained his Ph.D. He was also temporary research fellow at Munich and Zurich Universities. In recent years he worked on the philosophy of mathematics, and he published a book on this subject.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Prof Prisinzano,

Thank you for the nice essay on "Reality is discrete and Nice History of Philosophy starting from Pythagoras, Plato, Galileo, Archimedes etc... "

You are observations are excellent, for example.....

1. We shall then argue that, because of the discreteness of information, all mathematical model of reality must be discrete too. Since the latter includes phenomena such as subjective experiences, but also as motion and change, which we believe happen in a continuous dimension, we affirm that mathematical models cannot describe many of their aspects. Lastly, we suggest a hypothesis about why we have no information on intentionality and consciousness.....

2. He separated the world of mathematical and ideal entities from the world of natural phenomena - which is dependent on the first - and, in correspondence, separated the objects of science, which are eternal and changeless, from those of senses, which are mutable and elusive.

3. This connection is essential, because information and reality are inseparable

4. How can motion happen, assuming that space and time are discrete? Through a passage or a jump from point to point of space. The passage can not take place in space and time because, if these are discrete or granular, betwe space and time. The transition must take place instantly or, rather, outside of space and time. But how a transition from one to another element of space may be out of space (and time) is something not easy to conceive.

In Dynamic Universe Model (see my paper please) the calculations are based on both discrete and continuous motions. Calculations are recorded on regular intervals of time, whereas the in between the time intervals motion goes continuously,

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

Dynamic Universe model is with Fundamental axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and blog also where all my books and available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

    Dear Giovanni Prisinzano,

    I read your essay today, and find that we are in even more agreement than usual. Your idea about "Consciousness is a function that represents itself, but is anincomputable function, in the sense that there is no information about it (information is computable), and we can never derive it from some algorithm" is very interesting.

    I hold the view that experience is the only source of our knowledge, the research should be conducted within neopositivism line of Moritz Schlick (logical positivism/logical empiricism), arising from the position of Newton. Newton has always maintained that it is necessary to go from experiment to theory, and exclaimed: "Physics, afraid metaphysics!" It is metaphysics who go from hypotheses and theories to searching of experiments confirming their theory. But as the history of science has shown it is a dead end road. Let us remember that the basic laws of physics such as Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Newton's law of universal gravity, laws of Coulomb, Ampere, Faraday etc. were obtained experimentally, and cannot be derived from any of mathematical models. So, I offer a model of the picture of the world, where gravitation and electromagnetism have a single nature. It is based on the deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, which allows us to describe both micro and macro objects. Said approach allowed us to deduce a great number of fundamental laws basing on functional connections of the world constants. More detailed information on the subject can be found in Galactic Internet

    and Femtotechnologies

    Femtotechnologies Presentation

    Every day, hour, minute the time arrow makes another indifferent step towards the time we conventionally call our future. This is one of the words, along with death and oblivion that has always frightened us. We create illusions, found religions and declare new systems of beliefs, we believe in all kinds of miracles only to push our fear of the future as deep inside as we can. Our faith in miracles has provided a fertile ground for a metaphysical approach to the study of nature, since faith rests upon hypotheses, the untestable ideas as Newton called them. Metaphysics has become an obstacle on the way to creating a new knowledge, since by definition any knowledge is a well-structured system of experimental data. The river of knowledge has been blocked with metaphysical barriers. These are the barriers of cognition, movement and space. The first brick to the cognition barrier was laid at the time when Newton's and Maxwell's laws based on a deterministic approach to the macrocosm were finally acknowledged as final, and thus unshakeable. Probabilistic methods in physics and in the first place Heisenberg's indefiniteness principle, which is considered by most physicists a fundamental limit to our cognition, have played their role as barriers in the microcosm. The movement barrier was created by Einstein, whose theory of relativity limited any interaction in nature to the speed of light. The space barrier is filling the empty space with a hypothetical ether in the form of a curved time-space, physical vacuum etc.

    These artificially created barriers limit the depth of cognition, since they have been accepted as ultimate explanations. As a result, modern physics has found itself in a metaphysical swamp, where mathematical abstractions prevail.

    I hope that your work will be another fact that will help to overcome the barrier of cognition.

    My best wishes

      Your paper is entertaining, and you are right in the sense that space and time are model systems. We can't isolate a quantum bit in a region smaller than a Planck length L_p = sqrt{G徴.c^3} or a Planck time T_p = L_p/c. This does not curiously mean that spacetime is gridded or chopped into blocks per se. The Fermi satellite result illustrates the lack of dispersion from burstars billions of light years away means space is continuous nearly 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.

      In some ways space and time or spacetime are something emergent from mental consciousness. It is an epiphenomenology built up from quantum entanglements, and how we interpret this according to continuous geometry is a matter of our mental model building. It is in some sense a matter of psychology.

      Cheers LC

        Dear Alexander Ilyanok,

        I thank you very much for reading my essay and for your kind comments on it. I share your point of view on metaphysics and the obstacles it has often created for scientific research. I also agree on the fact that no physical theory (including those more established, such as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) can be considered ultimate explanation of the world.

        I will try to learn something about Femtotechnology and your deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, although my knowledge of physics is limited.

        My best regards,

        Giovanni

        Dear Lawrence,

        Thank you very much for reading and appreciating my essay!

        I was not aware of the results of the Fermi satellite and I'm happy to know that they can somehow support the point of view of the continuity of space-time.

        On the other hand I do not think that space and time have a purely subjective nature. I think they have a physical reality (which I consider having a mathematically continuous dimension, except for special reference frames), but the limits of information and of our perceptual sphere do allow us to represent them only through discrete models.

        Kind regards,

        Giovanni

        Dear Professor Prisinzano,

        Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

        I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

        Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

        The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        You say,

        "information and reality are inseparable. Not necessarily in the sense that they must co-exist, because information, being of mathematical nature, is eternal, or rather timeless, while reality changes, the things in the world are transitory; but in the sense that between information and reality there is a relationship similar to that between a system or a formal theory and its model. "

        I have never read a convincing expository explanation of what information is. As I see it, the term functions as a conceptual tool which humans use to try to interpret the world, and that as such, does not actually exist 'out there' in the real world. Similarly, the concept of number only exists in the thinker because he accepts unquestioningly the premise that there are things with identity that match one another. From this premise he concludes 'there is more that one'... of this class of things, and therefore, that numbers are a sensible tool for modeling the world of identical things. However, if one denies this assumption, and instead entertains the premise that every instance is entirely unique, one denies the notion that mathematics exists also.

        When it comes to consciousness and the application of maths, then, it is more that mathematics is a flawed tool for modelling objective reality itself (despite widespread faith in it as an accurate description of truths) than that it does not work well as a tool for understanding/describing/explaining consciousness.

        I just thought I would throw that idea into the mix for you...

          Dear Mark,

          I thank you very much for reading my essay, and for your interesting comment, which gives me the opportunity to clarify an aspect that perhaps in the text I have not explained very well.

          You're absolutely right in saying that the term "information", which is used more and more often, is difficult to understand, not least because everyone tends to interpret it in the way that suits him best.

          Without any pretense of completeness, I consider that information is objective component of the universe, of numerical nature and computable, e. g. by computers, that are so far the best systems to process information at our disposal. Subjective, or rather conventional, are on the contrary the coding systems of information, that is, the different languages in which it can be expressed. This means that information is indestructible, as many physicists now believe (Hawking, contrary to its earlier opinions, now seems to argue that even blacks holes cannot completely "swallow" information and cancel it). So information exists independently of the human mind and there would still be in the universe, even if there were no intelligent beings capable of understanding it. The same applies to the natural and real numbers (nomen omen), while calculus and the various numeral systems are products of human reason. But why only the natural and the real numbers would be independent of us? Because the reality is multiple and potentially infinite, on the one hand, and occurs in a continuous dimension (that is, in an actual infinity), on the other. I believe that also space and time have a numerical nature, but I would need much more than a post to argue this point.

          About the relationship between information and the rest of reality, I think it can be explained, at least in part, by saying that information is a mathematical model of reality, and that their relationship meets the main concepts of model theory, and in particular what is asserted by the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem.

          Many thanks for your kind interest and best wishes for everything. I look forward to reading your essay.

          Giovanni

          Thank you Giovanni Prisinzano,

          Thank you for posting on my papers page,

          Thank you for your kind words, I am waiting for your esteemed opinion on this Dynamic Universe model and for your future discussion...

          Best Regards

          =snp

          8 days later

          I had forgotten that I had read your paper in the past. I reread it. I would agree largely that physical reality sits within the first order logic domain and that by the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem the cardinality of this set is countably infinite at most. This is largely because the fundamental unit of physical reality is quantum information, which consists of qubits as discrete elements. These do however have topological meaning, and just as homotopy depends upon diffeomorphisms on continuous manifolds so too physics requires this. The difference is that points and continuum sets that are transfinite in nature have no physical information content. We derive no information from them directly.

          Cheers LC

            Dear Lawrence,

            thank you very much for your further comments!

            I totally agree that we cannot have direct information on transfinite sets. Information is discrete and computable, while infinite sets contain mostly uncomputable elements. But I'm not sure that some transfinite sets cannot have a physical meaning. Of them it is possible to have discrete models, as is done for example for real numbers. Moreover we don't know what space and time are made of. I know that the prevailing view nowdays is that they have a discrete and quantum structure. But it is not necessarily so. They may be continuous and composed of uncountable set of points (space) and instants (time). Important authors (as Russell and Grünbaum) have argued that only by admitting the continuum and the actual infinity we can solve Zeno's paradoxes.

            http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

            Cheers, Giovanni

            Dear Giovanni,

            I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and

            "> lyrics ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpBGPv6s2s4&list=FLTAAJTuBZSNWG96hdrzQ6bQ&index=8

            ) filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). My high score. I believe that the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental knowledge is the crisis of ontology. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.

            Yours faithfully,

            Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir,

              I thank you so much for your kind interest in my essay and for the very high appreciation that you have given to it! I fully share your view that science and philosophy are inseparable (so was from the beginning until the Eighteenth century) and that their results may agree. But since I'm (at least partially) a Kantian, I have some doubts we will ever reach a final theory about the universe. I will read and comment with pleasure and as soon as possible your essay.

              Yours sincerely,

              Giovanni

              Dear Giovanni

              I enjoyed reading your essay, and agree with your conclusions. Of course the whole question of mathematizable information rests on measurement, and if something is not directly measurable, as in consciousness, then there is no information upon which to formulate mathematical models.

              You may find my essay "From nothingness to value ethics" of interest.

              Best regards

              Gavin

              Dear Gavin,

              thank you so much for reading my essay, and for your kind comment, on which I agree. I posted my comment on your essay on your page.

              Giovanni

              9 days later

              Hi dear Giovanni,

              I have read your amazing essay and just become a little bit shocked finding there a lot of my viewpoints, particularly, about on deeper interconnection of natural science and philosophy (or, with the art of logical thinking.) I am not philosopher but I seen this link is just inevitable to be get some serious shift in nowadays physics (as I see it are in the incredible crisis!)

              You says for example "to see the invisible!" My dear, this just are a base point for my approach. You have talking on the significance of math that now become one of confusing aspects in present physics (meanwhile, in other areas nobody not see any complications on this matter!) So, I can say you much of compliments but let me read and to complete my evaluation of your work. Meantime I am very hopeful you can find time to look my work that I believe maybe interesting for you to read. Then we can summarize ours opinions! (I will grateful if you write some words in my page.)

              In any case, I see mandatory my good support to you!

              My best wishes.

                Dear George,

                I thank you so much for your attention to my essay and the high appreciation that you gave to it! First of all, I am very pleased that you share the view of a deep connection between science and philosophy, which is at the basis of the history of thought, but has become increasingly difficult, for various reasons, in the last two centuries.

                In recent days it was impossible for me to read your essay (or any other in the contest), but I will do it as soon as possible and I'll post a comment about it.

                My best wishes for all,

                Giovanni

                Dear Giovanni,

                It is nice to see that you have come back in the "field of battle"! I wish you strong healthy (if you has been a little bit not well!)

                And now I can say only that I was not at all mistaken in my hurried evaluation on your work, because I come fully convinced that you have well understanding where are the roots of a main problem, therefore your remarks will be very significantly to my.

                So, Be well!