The Tablet of the Metalaw by Cristinel Stoica

Dear Ms Stoica,

"The highest levels appear from the lowest level by ignoring details, resulting in a coarse graining of the state space." You identify it is as a process of abstraction. In a long time, I find a person that agrees on this. Thank you. Yet, its potential is far greater.

You take this example to defend the emergence of indeterministic statistical laws from deterministic processes at the most fundamental level. I cannot agree with this entirely. By asking to ignore the details at the lower level, what you allow is that many microscopic states map to one macrostate, and at macroscopic level, there is a many to one mapping. At the microscopic level though, evolution proceeds as one to one mapping between cause and effect, which in turn causes unique thread of macroscopic evolution, regardless of what it may appear at coarser level of macroscopic details. In fact, even if we consider many to one mapping at microscopic level, still we do not escape the unique trajectory in phase space. That is, the past of the universe may have many descriptions, but the future is unique since you do not allow one to many mapping. This logic could be applied to the earliest possible epoch, and then we could say that one is tracing a single thread of outcomes making the universe entirely deterministic. Therefore, indeterminism may arise only if at the fundamental level also many to one, and one to many mapping occur in the state space. Otherwise, statistical significance would vanish with sufficiently powerful computing technology.

In sections |9> to |11>, you have touched upon so many ideas and notions that overlap with elements of my own, that if I try to discuss and compare them all, it would be as much as the essay itself. Yet, let me take a few.

All of our thoughts have informational basis, all descriptions are informative, all communications are exchange of information. And here I do not mean quantity of information (as per Shannon), but the semantics (meaning) of information. All information is relational. Does information have a reality of its own? Information does not have to be digital or discrete at all. Due to our ability to draw inferences from observation of states of matter we tend to accept that association of information with states results from an act of modeling, without realizing that unless the system like brain has the ability to store, process, and transmit information by natural means, no information may ever come to reality. Therefore, either information has a reality of its own in the function of the universe, or it can never come about. In fact, if we associate information with states of matter, then the states must naturally bear correlation with that information. Moreover, with each interaction then information processing takes place.

Panpsyschism does not have to be right. Goals / aims are abstract information of expressions of 'need or want' that can emerge from specific structured information processing in a reproducing systems, as I have attempted to work out in my essay. That is, goal is not fundamental, information is.

"Is this impossibility to give an objective definition of subjectivity a proof that the hard `problem doesn't exist? ... A subjective science can't be objective ..."

Hard problem may dissolve if we find objective process of building abstraction. The process of abstraction that you mentioned is the potent mechanism to give rise to irreducible symbolism -- you may refer to my submission. Yes, you are right in saying, "Maybe subjective experience emerges from the organization of matter, or as a property of information.", It is not as much as the organization of matter as it is for the organization of information processing.

"This leads us straight to Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, which posits that physical existence equals mathematical existence."

1) There are other mathematical structures that are not applicable to physical world as we see it. And there cannot be a limit on number of mathematical structures.

2) Mathematics as we construct and apply are deterministic, it cannot deal with indeterminism. Laying down the probabilities is not a description of the physical function.

3) If a priori truth of mathematics is equivalent to physical universe, then description of the universe had the reality of eternity beyond time; there could not be anything that has not happened, and there could not be anything that is not happening at each moment of time. Indeterminism comes to rescue here again to save the universe from the eternity of the mathematical laws. Prof Max Tegmark is off the mark maximally.

By the way, I apply the following statement of yours, "because there are structures that can't not exist - mathematical structures", in a slightly different way. An universe has no existence if there is no pattern, no constancy in the function of its elements, but then given any correlation or constancy of relation, it cannot avoid exemplifying a mathematical structure.

As an aside, it appears that you have practiced Vipassana technique of meditation, it is not possible to be so accurate in articulating without having gone through the experience.

Rajiv

Cristi, Hi !

While following your pointers I learned just now that I made a mistake in addressing you in my comment to your essay. It certainly shows that I did not know about you, and did not try to find out who you were. I am sorry about my ignorance ! Ah! but I am also a bit disappointed, as I was appreciating such 'sharp' reasoning from some one else !

Life isn't always fair !

Rajiv

P.S. Be fair, and let me know if others also make this mistake often?

Nice essay Prof Stoica,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent some quotes below....

1. This optimism is fueled by the foundation of the entire physics on a few laws we know, of general relativity and gravity, quantum theory, and the Standard Model of particles, which indeed fit on a tablet. This makes us hope that the solutions of puzzles like dark matter, dark energy, and quantum gravity, will still fit on a tablet

2. A useful picture of how a theory of the universe works is given by dynamical systems. The set of all possible states of a system are collected in a space. Then, we need a rule to specify how the system changes from one state to the next usually an equation......................

For your information Dynamic Universe model is doing exactly this as you have mentioned in quote 2......

It is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

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.

With 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.

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

Hope you will have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

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

=snp. gupta

Hi Christinel,

I appreciate your replies and explanation of the thinking behind your writing. I understand, from my own experience, how hard it is to say precisely what one wants within a strict character count. My comments were meant as constructive criticism of just those specific parts. I'd be happy to read more of your writing. Kind regards Georgina

Dear Christinel,

I read your papers and I like your style of writing in a clear and concise manner. I don't know why I have not commented on your paper in the last contest. Generally I have given up on FQXI as being the right platform for discussing my idea(actually a theory:)) although I did manage to get some people like Gibbs and Torsten to comment. However, probably you and maybe Crowell(who always seem to be busy!) will be my only hope for some comment on my idea. I hope you browse my last year essay, it is short and the results are easy to check. This year( it is short because of last minute and not feeling well) I show that my simulations are very very close to a potential of the Helmann type , which is a combination of coulomb's potential and Yukawa's but with a different interpretation. Also from the same system that generates all the quantum mechanical results I generate Newton's gravity law(just check it out if you don't believe it)

last year essay

this year essay

Note for gravity only P2 should be considered

gravity

Dear Cristinel,

I found your essay to be well written and easy to read, but I was unconvinced by what seems to be the main point of the essay:

We arrive at the conclusion that the only necessary existence is mathematical existence. Physical universes don't exist with necessity, so it is legitimate to ask why they exist. But mathematical structures exist with necessity, in mathematical sense, and they are a priori truths.

The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" can be answered by: "because there are structures that can't not exist - mathematical structures".

Seemingly you are saying that every possible mathematical structure must exist. In fact, it is not necessary that every possible mathematical structure must exist: such an idea is completely overblown and excessive! What is necessary is that the universe has the ability to generate its "mathematical structures" (e.g. law-of-nature rules).

P.S.

The Aeon essay "Parallel worlds" by Andrew Crumey, a novelist with a PhD in physics, discusses the writings of German literary critic and philosopher Walter Benjamin. Benjamin asserts that the idea that reality is configured so that every possible outcome exists is dehumanising, a damning reflection on the society that produces such an idea, and that such dehumanisation led to the rise of fascism:

For Benjamin, however, the multiverse is not an intellectual parlour game, but a damning reflection of the society that produces it.

In a proposed introduction to The Arcades Project, Benjamin compares Blanqui's multiverse to Baudelaire's poem 'Les sept vieillards' ('The Seven Old Men', 1857), which takes a succession of identical old men and imagines them as a single man multiplied in some 'infamous plot'. This, says Benjamin, is an image of modernity itself. An eventual consequence of such dehumanisation was the rise of fascism.

[ https://aeon.co/essays/can-the-multiverse-explain-the-course-of-history ].

Reality is not "an intellectual parlour game". Shouldn't physicists (and others) think a bit harder about what it is they are saying?

OK, Thanks, and good luck on your presentation.

Dear Cristinel,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high praise.

I share your dream

«Many physicists share the dream that sooner or later we will know the fundamental physical laws, the equations describing them, and that they will be unified in a single theory which fits on a t-shirt, or perhaps on a stone tablet - the tablet of the law.»

In my opinion, the task is how to gradually abandon the use of abstract concepts and ideal (supernatural) properties of matter and fields.

Because you are right «most scientists seem to agree that materialism won».

Since you «Interested especially in the geometric aspects of the physical laws»

consider: «The alternative seems to be to give up the very hope of having a realistic description, and admit as real only the probabilities.»

«Why does the world appears classical to our direct experience, rather than being populated by Schr ̈odinger cats? The classical level seems to defeat the quantum level.»

Therefore, perhaps my essay will complement your understanding of the determinism and causes of quantum and physical processes that begin with the geometric fractal structure of matter.

Can my ideas serve as an intermediate and connecting link between Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics?

I have no illusions, but I will not hide, I would like to receive an answer - why it is not, as I believe, more likely by mail and perhaps not now.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Dear Cristi,

"If mathematical structures exist anyway, and if the universe is isomorphic to a mathematical structure (Stoica, 2015b, 2016d), do we need something more to explain why there is something rather than nothing? This leads us straight to Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis (Tegmark, 2008, 1998, 2014), which posits that physical existence equals mathematical existence - in other words, logical possibility equals reality. Accordingly, we are just substructures of such a mathematical structure, we observe the structure as it appears to us, and ask questions like the one in the title17. One can object to the identification of physical existence with mathematical existence by claiming that the latter is imaginary. But I think this is a different kind of imaginary, since it is consistent."

Re the above-mentioned hypothesis that the universe is isomorphic to a mathematical structure which you say "leads us straight to Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis":

You claim that "people have to be at the center of the entire scientific activity". But how could people be at the centre of the entire scientific activity if we live in a multiverse where just as many universes exist where people are not the centre of the entire scientific activity? Tegmark's multiverse implies that every good work that I personally do is countered by a universe in which I do just as many bad works: this view of reality IS dehumanising. Physicists' views of reality influence people's attitudes towards reality: ideas spread quickly and far and wide. How can physicists disclaim responsibility for the effects that their views have on people's attitudes towards reality, and on people's attitudes towards themselves and their good works?

Regards,

Lorraine

Dear Cristi,

You have not responded to some other points that I mentioned in my first comment, I was hoping that you would get back to them as you seemed to have indicated. Also, we may have some other points to discuss about the centrality of semantics of information and abstraction, but I was holding on since I thought it would be more meaningful once you happened to read my essay as you indicated.

Looks like quantum mechanics is holding the central fort in the discussions on this topic. And my guess is that it is largely due to certain mystery around its formulation. But it is entirely possible that this kind of focus on certain limited aspect may have taken the attention of the scientific community away from something simpler that is deeply connected with the problem.

Even though I had noted that you did not conclude one way or the other about the definitive emergence of aims and intentions, but I still found your essay to be one of the best so far that I read because of its wide ranging coverage and intuitive reasoning. To my mind, sometimes conclusion is less important, unless definitive, than bringing forth all relevant issues with comprehensive understanding.

Rajiv

Dear Cristi,

I think you underestimate the problems with the multiverse and mathematical universe ideas. I'm sure reality is not quite as senseless and weird as your model of the universe makes out. The model of reality in my essay (The Universe as a System that Generates its Own Rules) presents a more logical way to look at the nature of the universe, that is not "offensive and dehumanising".

Best wishes,

Lorraine