Christinel,

The tablet of the law is the theory of everything, something you suggest is fundamentally simple, but your tablet of metalaw sounds like metalegal principles applying to all intelligent creatures of the universe, relating to Kant's Categorical Imperative based on natural law theory. Critics say it depends on subjective or relative concepts of good and bad. Does that relate to your tablet of metalaw?

My essay surveys the zoom-dependent nature of the universe and entropy as an independent law of nature, citing the Jeremy England flavor. I find the issue we are exploring somewhat difficult to scrutinize.

Enjoyed exploring your ideas and views.

Regards,

    Dear Lawrence,

    Thank you for your comment.

    You said "I know that you have worked to dethrone spacetime singularities."

    Yes, I worked a lot in spacetime singularities in (classical) general relativity, but not to dethrone them. I actually love them and wanted to understand them. They exist (if no quantum or other kind of effect doesn't remove them), but I provided a description of them which is free of infinities, while still making geometrical and physical sense. They are still singular, and I think this may be useful, because they have dimensional reduction effects which may be useful in quantum gravity.

    Bet regards,

    Cristi

    Hi Robin,

    Thank you for the comments and the very interesting questions.

    As you know, there is a position that tries to reconcile free-will with determinism, called compatibilism, which perhaps is just what you refer to by "it would not be more fruitful to define it in terms of the specific nature of the determinism that is involved". The position that I mentioned in the essay is different. Schrodinger's equation is a fundamental law governing the wavefunction, and its success in describing the behavior of particles and atoms is overwhelming. But to reconcile it with the definite outcomes of measurements, it is supposed than the wavefunction should collapse. This leads to some problems: it breaks a fundamental law like Schrodinger's equation, it violates the conservation laws, and escapes a causal description. My proposal is to resolve the tension between clasical macro and quantum micro (also at the origin of the measurement problem) by selecting from the Hilbert space only the solutions that work like this. But this leads to moving the collapse on the initial conditions of the universe, in an apparent retrocausality. The solutions are then still deterministic according to the Schrodinger equation, without collapse, but the probabilities are moved to the initial conditions. So we have both determinism and randomness. I argued that this provides a compatibility between determinism and free-will, although I leave it here, since I am not sure what free-will really is. Of course, even the input from QM is too small to be able to account for what we feel free-will is, so in all cases one should add to the description what you said, "Autonomy, openness, etc.".

    About your question about a lower level description of mathematics. I think any sort of description of any sort of thing, if it is consistent and rigorous, it becomes mathematical. I agree that we can conceive worlds in which the propositions change from being true to being false and vice-versa, but this happens by change, as in the example you provided, and maybe this is time. So if I understand it well, I think this is still a dynamical system. But who knows, I may be surprised someday by learning about something more fundamental than mathematics. If you advance with the idea, please let me know!

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Dear Gavin,

    Thank you for reading my essay and providing interesting comments and questions.

    I agree with you that "why do we have THIS universe rather than nothing" is indeed a better question. But maybe if we break it into smaller questions, we increase or chances to advance. The smaller questions may be (1) "why do we have THIS universe rather than something else" and (2) "why do we have something rather than nothing". Then, what I did was to break (2) into (2') "what can't not exist?" and (2'') "what else do we need for what can't not exist to make up a world?". I think that the answer to (2') is "mathematical structures". MUH states that the answer to (2'') is "this is enough", but not everyone is satisfied. Also, Tegmark can be understood as proposing to reformulate (1) as (1') "why is this particular mathematical structure our universe rather than any other structure", and to addressing it by anthropic reasoning. I think the latter part is subject to some critical remarks based on computational equivalence which I described in And the math will set you free.

    You made me curious about your essay "From nothingness to value ethics", and I am looking forward to read it.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Dear Cristinel Stoica,

    I highly appreciate and completely support thoughts and the approach, stated in your essay. It's magnificent and very topical material. I hope that you will find concrete attempts of transition to the following level of physical laws in my work.

    Best Regards,

    Vladimir A. Rodin

      Hi James,

      Thank you for the comments. Yes, the table of the law contains the fundamental laws. In the essay I try to not use the words "theory of everything" about this, since it would be about the fundamental laws only. It is not evident at all that the higher level of organizations can be reduced to the fundamental laws, and I gave several reasons about this. Of course the table of the law underlies them, but there are limits of computability, logical completeness (by finite length proof) etc. In addition, the higher level may do stuff that is not visible in the low level ones, and may even constrain them (as I argue it happens in quantum mechanics). The table of the metalaw include no-go theorems, emergent laws that are independent on the fundamental ones, like entropy for instance, etc. I did not discuss ethics, but I think it should be connected to the metalaw too. I agree, these are all difficult, some problems may be impossible to even define.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Dear Vladimir Rodin,

      Thank you for the comments, and I am interested to see your attempts of transition to the following level of physical laws.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Cristi Stoica,

      You wrote a very interesting essay that touches on a number of thought provoking points and questions. However, I do not see where you addressed the supposed theme of the essay, 'How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?' Can you summarize in a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs how your essay addresses this theme?

      There are several ideas discussed that certainly seem to relate to the theme, but I do not see where you pulled them all together to respond to the question posed by the theme. Now, that does not mean that you did not do this, it may just be beyond me. But, I felt that I pretty much understood most of what you discussed, and, in the end, just did not come away with a good feel for your position on the matter.

      Obviously, based on the posts and ratings, others are more in tuned with your approach, which further points to my probable lacking. You can tell from my essay that I approached the theme in a more rudimentary way. I attempted to lay out how the evolution from subatomic particles, that are at the will of physics, to a living cell, that has a will of its own, might have occurred. Still, I want to know your point; so please bear with me. Thanks.

      Best regards,

      Bill Stubbs.

        Dear Bill,

        Thanks for reading my essay and for the comments and questions.

        You said "I do not see where you addressed the supposed theme of the essay, 'How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?' Can you summarize in a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs how your essay addresses this theme?".

        To answer this, please allow me to point you to section 8 for goals, 9,11 for consciousness, to section 12 for a conclusion, and to sections 1-7,10 for the mindless mathematical laws, on which I build the other sections, and which contain elements that I used there. I gave more attention to principles than to specific models of goals and agents for the following reasons: (1) agents with goals are pretty much understood in older results that I mention in section 8. By contrast, (2) I think that consciousness is very little understood, and I personally am not satisfied with the current models, and also I don't have a better one. I think this is due to the lack of understanding of fundamental principles, which I divide into "laws" and "metalaws". I think for the theme of the contest metalaws are most relevant, but at the same time, since fundamental science works by reductionism, I had to show the relations between laws and metalaws, and the strengths and limits of reductionism. To the perspective I intended to present with respect to the theme, I think this was the best approach. There is a long way to answer properly these questions, and without knowing what physical laws allow us to do, I think that there is little hope to answer them.

        You said you "did not come away with a good feel for your position on the matter", which means that I don't rush to conclusions, which I consider would be premature.

        You said "based on the posts and ratings, others are more in tuned with your approach, which further points to my probable lacking". I think that the comments I receive are self-explanatory of what others saw in my essay, good or bad, and the ones that gave very small ratings probably didn't comment, so perhaps it's impossible to learn from their feedback.

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Christinel,

        "Why is there something rather than nothing?" A good question.

        Is so-called empty space the cusp of reality, alternatively something then nothing?

        How do you make this physics foundation solid ? of the pyramid?

        Jim

        Dear Cristinel Stoica

        I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

        How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

        1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

        2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

        3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

        4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

        5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

        6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

        7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

        8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

        9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

        11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

        12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

        I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

        Héctor

        Hi James,

        > Is so-called empty space the cusp of reality, alternatively something then nothing?

        No, I didn't say this.

        > How do you make this physics foundation solid ? of the pyramid?

        I am not sure what you mean. If you refer to the universe as a mathematical structure, maybe consistency is enough. I am not sure what is "solid", since there is no such thing in reality. Solid objects only appear to be so. Or "solid" as a thing that can't be destroyed? What can destroy a mathematical structure? Or perhaps I am missing what you mean.

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Hi Cristi,

        I send you my congrats not only for this new, intriguing Essay, but also for your recent remarkable results in general relativity, particle physics and quantum mechanics.

        Concerning your Essay, you wrote "Suppose we will find the unified theory of the fundamental physical laws. Then what?". This is a fundamental question. Your statement that "if the wave-function is real rather than mere probability, causality as we know it has to be reconsidered" is intriguing and opens various doors. Finally you wrote: "A bottom-up approach may never lead to the understanding of the higher levels, and a top-down approach is not enough." This shows how small we are with respect to the gigantic Nature.

        Your Essay is a remarkable contribution which deserves the highest score that I am going to give you. Good luck in the Contest.

        Cheers, Ch.

          Hi Christian,

          Thank you for your kind comments, I am very honored. I hope this essay contest will catalyse the rigorous research of the connections between the fundamental laws and the emergent systems. While I too dedicate most of my time to researching the fundamental law, in this essay I wanted to emphasize the necessity to also consider the metalaws. I wish you good luck with the contest!

          Cheers,

          Cristi

          Dear Cristinel Stoica,

          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

          Dear Joe Fisher,

          I could not agree more with the quote from Einstein, and with your remarks on simplicity. I am a modest seeker of simplicity myself, and I hope that the laws of the universe fit on a small tablet. Maybe some are more blessed with the ability to see the simplicity without simplifying too much, and others are more involved or sometimes lost in complexity. As a realist, you definitely know that the same simple unique reality includes all kinds. I added your essay to my planned readings. Good luck with the contest!

          Best regards,

          Cristi

          Dear Cristi,

          that was interesting to read. I have some praise and some criticism -- and maybe a funny final observation! But let's begin from the start. I like the early sections of your essay, in particular |5> Floating levels of the pyramid -- I fervently support your conclusions in that section.

          I also agree with what you say about quantum field theory in |6>, but I fear we wouldn't easily reach consensus on several things you say about quantum mechanics in |6> and |7> (e.g. the non-locality implied by the violation of Bell's inequalities isn't at variance with causality and there are interpretations of quantum mechanics which avoid the problems caused by the collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation).

          You lose me somewhat in |8> and |9>. In sections |10> and |11> you develop some special version of Platonism, with which one may or may not want to agree.

          Interestingly, however, I essentially agree again with your section |12>. Given that there were a couple of points in between, which I'd challenge, this might be surprising. Looking once more at it, I think you could have almost jumped straight from |5> to |12>! I'd be curious about your views on my essay, which, I think, partially parallels those parts of your essay leading me to similar conclusions.

          Cheers, Stefan

            Hi Christinel,

            "If sentience is either reducible or related to physical structure and information, then one should expect it to be present in primitive forms at each level of reality, since structure and information are also present there." C. Stoica, 2017

            Sentience can be related to physical structure and information without being present in the lower levels constituents. It is important to avoid the fallacy of division. Regarding sentience, there either is sufficient complexity and organization for its emergence or there isn't. Beyond sentience there either is sufficient structural organization of neural architecture for goals and planning or there isn't; In my opinion. For analogy: An Aran design scarf with twisted knitted cables running its length emerges over time from some specific sequences of forces applied to a length of the spun yarn; giving the accumulated complex spatial distribution of the wool. It would be incorrect to say that, as the scarf shows the Aran cable design so must the wool yarn itself, the wool fibers making up the spun yarn and even the atoms of the wool. There are no Aran design atoms or Aran design wool fibers, or Aran design unknitted yarn. The emergent characteristic exists because of the level of complexity and organization. Though dependent on the structure and characteristics of the constituents at smaller scales the emergent characteristic is not due just to there being more. Thus, lesser amounts do not show a lesser amount of the characteristic, they do not have the emergent characteristic.

            "Photons and electrons are associated to information processing, and we can say that their goal is to propagate according to the physical laws. This goal is always to propagate an infinitesimal step, and it is always attained in an infinitesimal time, in accord to the equations of motion.?" C. Stoica, 2017

            "We can say that their goal is... but is it? A goal is an anticipated future outcome not merely action Now caused by the physics /chemistry of the situation. Inanimate objects do not have the capacity to possess goals of their own. Assigning prior purposes and goals rather than just looking at the causes is unnecessary and in my opinion inaccurate.

            You've tackled some interesting big questions. A good read, thanks.