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 Lorraine,

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts, more or less related to my essay. Just to clarify: the conclusion you quote from my essay is derived from what I wrote earlier, "let's try to see what constituents of the universe could very well not exist". If that would be the main conclusion of the essay, then you should expect to find it in the concluding section, but it is not there. In fact, in the concluding section I wrote "At the top of the pyramid are life and consciousness, and they should be the center of science too". I advocated more for placing humanity at the core of science here.

    Re. your P.S., I think dehumanization is the tendency to reduce others and their words to carefully chosen caricatures. These days so many attempt to prove their righteousness by simply calling the views different from their own nazist, communist, or fascist. Is there a unique right way which everyone, and even the universe, should adopt? If some physicist found reasons to think that quantum mechanics implies many-worlds, or sum-over-histories, or that inflation leads to multiverse, should we reject them because we think this is dehumanizing, rather than on the ground of reason? Should a vast 13.7 billion years old universe comply to what some decades old locals think it is morally right? Some considered classical physics, by its determinism, dehumanizing by the apparent lack of free-will, while others like Sam Harris think that the belief in free-will itself is dehumanizing, by making us hate others (like "they can behave well, but they don't want to, so they deserve my hate"). Evolution is still considered by many dehumanizing, as it is science itself. The duty of scientists is to listen to the story the universe has to tell us, and avoid their own philosophical or religious biases. But at the same time, as I said, people have to be at the center of the entire scientific activity.

    Best wishes,

    Cristi

    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 Vladimir,

    I appreciate your comments, as well as your connections you make between my essay and yours, which from what you wrote seems interesting, especially by proposing a connection between Einstein's general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

    Best regards,

    Criti

    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 Lorraine,

    When I say "people should be at the centre of the entire scientific activity", I don't mean that we should reject any physical law or hypothesis which makes humans appear insignificant. The universe has its laws, and while we appeared by virtue of these laws, Nature doesn't seem to care about us. Nature hits us with epidemics, catastrophes, aging and death. It just doesn't seem to care. What I said it is that WE should care. And science appeared as a means to convert Nature on our side. Not by denying its laws, but by curiosity, by loving and trying to understand Nature. For this, scientists propose hypotheses, with the purpose of explaining the laws of Nature. Either by curiosity, or to learn how to improve human's lives.

    You asked: "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?"

    May I ask in turn "how could people be at the centre of the entire scientific activity if we live in a 13.7 billion year old universe where humans exist only for 100 000 years, and as far as we know, only on a tiny pale blue dot, out of an infinitely vast number of planets?"

    I think we should consider any hypothesis that has explanatory power, no matter how speculative may appear. Do you think that we should choose only the hypotheses that make us feel good about ourselves? This would sabotage our efforts to understand Nature, and therefore to improve humans' lives.

    What if Newton decided to burn his theory of mechanics, because in a world where mechanics determines everything, people will not have free-will, will not be accountable or rewardable for what they do?

    Should we execute guys like the Church did with Giordano Bruno, who dared to claim that human's planet is not at the center of the universe, and that many other worlds may exist?

    Should we refute Maxwell's equations, theory of relativity, and any deterministic theory, because we don't like our deeds to be predetermined by imutable laws? Should we refute quantum mechanics, because we don't like that its intrinsic randomness implies that our deeds are random? Should we refute evolution because it says that we are what we are because of random chance?

    You say "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.". I don't even think that from the MUH follows that YOU in other worlds are bad. It may be someone with your name and many similarity with you which is bad in other worlds, but that is not you. You are what you are in this worlds. The other "you"s are not you, even if they may share the same DNA, because they have different histories, different choices. I can understand your frustration that all your good nature and efforts to do good works will only apply to this version of you, and are not guaranteed to also apply to other versions. So what? You are different from them.

    But I find this more humanizing than you think. Because it makes us think that in different situation, we may have made some choices for which we now so easily blame or despise other people. This gives us the opportunity to realize that we shouldn't blame others for what they are, if we are not in their shoes. And I think this is the most humanizing thing.

    Just like you are so proud of what you did in this world and are afraid that if the multiverse is true, some other "you" may do some bad things in that world, there may be others in this world who regret their doings, and hope that in other world they would do better. Or people who may find comfort that in other worlds a tragedy that happened to someone they loved didn't happen.

    "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?"

    If you are so responsible, then how can you not think that the multiverse may be a chance of redemption or of a completely better life than this one, how can you disclaim responsibility for the effects of your view?

    I have two boys, and the youngest one is severely autistic. It was not the choice of me and my wife to be so. If there is a cause, the cause is Nature, but I don't blame Her. I don't blame the laws of physics and evolution for doing this to him, and to many others. If God exists, should I blame Him for not being as good and merciful as advertised? If there is someone to blame, maybe it is more practical to blame the corrupt government, which doesn't care about these problems, and because of which I need to have two jobs just to be able to provide him therapy (which leads to very small progress anyway). If the multiverse theory will be proven to be true somehow (which I doubt), should I just institutionalize him and be comfortable that in a parallel world he is OK? I don't think so, I just have to do my best to take care of him in this world, and give him the best chance I can, no matter how the universe is, how God is, and how the government is. I see no moral implications at all of the multiverse in this issue, in any possible world my duty is to do my best. And I see no moral implications in other aspects of our lives. We just do our best, that's all. I leave the game of blame to others.

    So far, all scientific ideas and technological advances were found offensive and dehumanizing by some. Yet, I think that you can see statistics showing that in overall human behavior improved in time. I doubt you have any study that shows that the multiverse ideas led to dehumanization and to fascism or other bad things. It is just a worry you have.

    Best wishes,

    Cristi

    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

    Dear Lorraine,

    I didn't read your essay yet, but I don't think we should choose the laws of physics* by the criterion that they make us feel good. Maybe we can choose the interpretation of them by this or whatever personal criterion we have, but not the laws themselves. This would not be science, and would not allow us to advance in our reconciliation with the universe.

    I don't know where in my essay you read that I said the universe is senseless. In fact, in my essay I advocate that sentience or subjective experience is irreducible, and that we may be able to explore it by subjective means like meditation. For example "almost all features of consciousness are conceivably reducible to information processing of one sort or another. If something resists, this is subjective experience. In the absence of an absolute ground to rely on, I think what we really know is that we are, and that there are mathematical truths." Even if I am wrong, I think this insistence in cherry picking to support your derogatory moral judgements of my words is the most dehumanizing act I saw on this forum. You may have your own motivations to do this, but I think this is gratuitous.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    ________________________

    * Not that I consider any of the ideas of multiverse, many-worlds, or mathematical universe, as scientifically proven, or even provable.

    Dear Cristi,

    I'm sorry you have taken what I said to be a personal criticism. In fact, I have no ill will towards you - far from it. You are correct that I am cherry picking out ideas from essays for criticism. Because I have long been interested in these ideas about the fundamental nature of reality, and how this relates to our here and now human reality, ever since I studied physics at university 45 years ago. So I would hope that, if you read my essay, you would feel free to criticise any ideas you disagree with, and not just say nice things.

    Best wishes,

    Lorraine

    Another interesting article that deals with the different spatial scales and emerging concepts.

    It is clear that these concepts are the future and now the first steps (from a conceptual form) are being presented and should be adequately demonstrated and verified,

    Please read my article that deals with these concepts but focuses on Cosmology. THE SCALE LANDSCAPES OF THE UNIVERSE ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2925 ),

    Congratulations !

      Dear Cristi,

      If the schema that you espouse is true, i.e. that all "logical possibility equals reality" (page 8, The Tablet of the Metalaw), then every Me who does a good work is balanced by a Me who does a bad work. This is the realm of madness, the realm in which you say don't worry that Donald Trump got into power, because in another universe the logical possibility is that people voted differently, and Hilary Clinton got into power.

      The alternative to madness is to say that, out of all logical possibilities, the inherent nature of reality is such that it allows only one possibility to be chosen.

      Regards,

      Lorraine

      Hi David,

      Thank you for the comments and for suggesting your essay. Congratulations and good luck in the contest!

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Dear Lorraine,

      You said "every Me who does a good work is balanced by a Me who does a bad work".

      There is nothing like you pulling at one end of a rope in this world, and another you in another world pulling at the other. If there are multiple worlds, they are independent.

      If someone would say "don't worry that Donald Trump got into power, because in another universe the logical possibility is that people voted differently, and Hilary Clinton got into power", I would say too that that person is mad. Of course is mad, because the better universe is that where Bernie Sanders is president :)

      Leaving the joke aside, I know many people who believe in one form or another of parallel universes, and so far I never saw one of them saying that one should not care about a bad thing in this world, because there is another world in which that thing didn't happen. (What's curious is that most people believe that if a bad injustice happens here to a person, that person will be compensated after he or she dies; that if someone is born with a disability, that person (if is good enough) will be cured in the after world as if nothing bad happened. Is this a world of madness too?)

      The reason why people who believe in parallel universes don't find comfort that there is a parallel world where Hilary Clinton is president, is because they live in this one, and they can't emigrate into the other. So for all practical purposes, it is irrelevant to them if there are other worlds in which better events took place instead the ones they don't like in this world.

      In fact I already answered this, in my reply to you on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 05:22 GMT. I explained that these worlds are separated, and even if there is someone looking like you and with the same name as you in another world, this is a different person. They can't balance their works, because they work on independent stuff. And that even if something bad happens to one or somebody one loves, one can't find comfort in thinking about a world in which everything is fine. We have to do our best in this world. Sorry for repeating myself, but the question was repeated.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Dear Cristi,

      I have a different story:

      Roxanne had failed to notice that she continually collapsed the "quantum probabilities" of her own body into a single outcome, within the limits of deterministic law-of-nature rules (i.e. miraculous "Healing people, levitating, moving objects" are not possible). Each time, she collapsed the quantum probabilities by generating a new one-off local rule that had the deterministic effect of resetting the numeric value of one of the uncertain variables. This ability to generate initial-value rules allowed her the partial freedom to navigate within the universe-system, as opposed to her being fully controlled by the system rules.

      She hadn't realised that nature is economical, i.e. it simply generates rules as required (without ever breaking existing law-of-nature rules), because she had googled a fake news physics website which told her that all logically possible rules (including all initial-value rules) must physically exist in separate universes.

      (I would contend that my story is less bizarre!!)

      Regards,

      Lorraine

      Hi Klee,

      Thanks, I enjoyed yours too! Good luck in the contest!

      Best wishes,

      Cristi

      P.S.

      So the real issue, what we seemingly must agree to disagree on is: "where do the rules that control the universe come from?".

      Dear Cristinel,

      I appreciate your essay, which manages to be wide-ranging, coherent, and intelligible, all at the same time. One question that occurs to me concerns the relationship between the scale of values and the structure of reality as a multilevel pyramid. In section 12 you seem to indicate that life and consciousness are more important and more valuable than entities and processes at lower levels. Do life and consciousness have this distinction because they are at the top of the pyramid, and the pyramidal structure itself inherently requires that items at each level be more important and more valuable than items at lower levels? Or does this steady increase of importance and value with rise in levels not obtain? Then, in that case there would be some other reason why the items at the apex are of the highest importance.

      Thanks for a thought-provoking essay. Best wishes.

      Laurence Hitterdale