Superdeterminism at the Planck scale by james r. akerlund

Hi James,

Seeing your abstract, after reading your comments on my page, gives me insight into why you might write what you did. Are you aware about recent papers by Hyun Seok Yang? I have not read your paper yet, so he may be one of your references. I apologize if some of my commentary is impertinent, but I will re-post my reply to your comments on my page below. Then I'll promise to read your essay before long.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I am compelled to respond to this..

While I am not a great fan of String Theory; I admit its value and I think it's part of the total picture we must examine, but it is a smaller piece of the puzzle than some believe. I am a friend of Brian Greene and I have met Ed Witten, but I am more in the camp of Abhay Ashtekar, in regards to how the Strings program fits into the overall spectrum of gravitational Physics, at least. I had the pleasure to sit with him, during a few lectures at GR21, and he shows a genuine interest to make use of every advancement, regardless from what camp it comes. I figure there is something behind the fact that regularities appear, when various theories of Quantum Gravity make similar predictions, despite having a completely different theoretical basis.

I admit the 'Math predates universe..' idea is a little hard to swallow, and the idea that it also dictates both the laws of Physics that shape the universe, and that there be an evolution of form and consciousness within that universe makes my premise ambitious indeed. But I think Max Tegmark did not go nearly far enough, in his MUH. Connes is emphatic about features of NCG that have no parallel in conventional Maths. Kainen in correspondence has endorsed my usage, and was flattered to be mentioned with Connes. I had my doubts until recently, as well. But my conversation with Tevian affirmed that these are complications that must be dealt with.

After a discovery I made more than 30 years ago, suggesting the Mandelbrot Set could be a sort of road map for Cosmology; I have tried in vain to disprove this, and instead I have settled on the idea that the universe is maximally mathematical. While trying to understand why the universe would mimic the Mandelbrot Set, or vice versa, I came to understand it is only one piece of the puzzle - which like E8 can tell us a lot about the universe. Seeing how far Garrett Lisi was able to take it, but that more was needed, got me to thinking. But my collaboration with (now departed) Ray Munroe was the clincher for me.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Just a query to go...

Do you ever draw 7-color maps on your donuts in the morning Jim?

All the Best,

Jonathan

Having read your essay..

I like the idea you have developed, but this essay is obviously talking about work in progress. I find it interesting that you have used a coined term noncommunitive, but you are talking about something similar to what Connes is talking about in some of his non-commutative geometry work. You hint at what I talked about with Tevian Dray, that led to my essay on Putting Elephants to Work. What he affirmed is what I said about spacetime becoming first non-commutative and then non-associative as we approach the Planck scale. This does create a condition bordering on super-determinism.

However; you have erred in some of the details, even though your core message is essentially right, to a point where it requires additional research on your part to correct. What you need to know is out there, but there are a lot of missing puzzle pieces in the picture you are assembling, and your unconventional usage or coined terminology prevents this from being digested in a rigorous way. It still needs work or is a work in progress, and I will rate it accordingly, but I give you kudos for some interesting explorations. Thanks James.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Given what your essay concludes..

You may wish to check out the essay of Andrew Beckwith, who comes to a similar conclusion through different means. His derivation is highly technical, but if correct would affirm the spirit of your work. I would also greatly recommend you check out Hyun Seok Yang on arXiv, for papers about emergent spacetime, which assert that being non-commutative in the microscale equals emergent spacetime.

Enjoy,

Jonathan

Hi James, Very interesting approach of the Planck Wall.

I think that the "deterministic" or even "superdeterministic" effect from behind (what I call Total Simultaneity) is emerging becaus we only can compare the past.

I also use the Planck Wall as a limit of reality, so I hope that you will find some time to comment my essay "The Purpose of Life" and give it a rating.

I do not understand the "authors" just giving ONE's without any comment, untill now I received already 5 !!!. So be prepared!!! I rated you very positive because of the new thoughts that I learned.

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Hello Mr Arkelund,

I must say that I liked a lot your approach of this non commutative planck scale.Very relevant.

Good luck in this contest

Best

Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

James Akerlund,

Thank you so much for leaving a comment on my essay thread. It brought to light a distinction between mathematics and information I had not fully communicated. I take them as separate entities. Certainly the number of abstract objects and their relationships are extensive and indeed infinite. However I consider information as something physical; contained within the negentropy of the universe. I agree with you that the physical evolution of the universe proceeds through numbered states. However, the number six might not be an eigenstate. The Universe may have jumped from 4 to 8. But that does not rule out six as a valid abstract object. I believe the abstract objects are there whether we look for them or not. Our concept of Euclidian geometry, which can be derived by logic from an underlying subset of relationships in the ARM, represents an excellent first-order mapping of our physical reality. Space time is non-Euclidean, not because we ask it to be but because it more closely maps to abstract mathematical structures of higher complexity. Does the color of your grass map to topology? Yes it does, but not completely. At the most fundamental level, the topology of the causal lattice determines the nature of electromagnetic vibrations that impinge upon the objects that we subjectively experience as the qualia of color. Color is an emergent phenomenon that occurs within the consciousness of any sentient being with color receptors. But that qualia owes its attributes (hue, saturation and brightness) to their supervenience on a long chain of emergent physical structures which owe their commanding form to the abstract relationships in the underlying emergent structures in the ARM. We certainly cannot explain color by topology alone but we cannot fully explain color without it. As all of mathematics seems to be based on set theory, it would be hard to give an example anywhere in nature were set theory does not apply.

Best regards,

Jim Stanfield