Numbers in a universe without a Platonic realm

My essay assumes that there is no Platonic realm to miraculously explain difficult issues like the source of law-of-nature relationships/rules in the universe. The same applies to numbers, though my essay does not consider the issue of numbers.

I contend that numbers in the universe must ultimately derive from relationships/rules where (if represented mathematically) you can cancel the numerator and denominator categories, and end up with a number: a thing without a category. And once you have a set of initial value numbers for system variables, then (to some extent) other system variable numbers logically derive from them due to law-of-nature relationships/rules.

The number pi is a difficult issue. I am contending that numbers always exist as relationships, not as final results. So pi does not exist as 3.14159... but as a relationship between the above-described "things without categories". And I contend that that the pi relationship is more likely something like the relatively simple Leibniz formula for pi, rather than the more complex formulas for pi. But being a non-algebraic number, for the pi relationship to exist in the universe (rather than existing in a Platonic realm) seems to imply many entities (i.e. particles) somehow being party to the relationship. I.e. pi seems to imply a relationship that somehow holds the parts of the universe together.

Physics can be seen as the discovery of actual relationships that exist in the universe; but mathematics can be seen as the discovery of the properties and nature of all possible types of relationships that can be represented symbolically, where the vast majority of these potential relationships don't actually exist in the universe. But the existence of numbers in the universe, rather than in a Platonic realm, seems to imply that there is hidden relationship structure in the universe that can only be inferred, because it can't be directly measured because there is no category to measure.

It seems relatively easy to imagine that the symbols + - x and ÷ could represent actual relationships that exist between actual categories in the universe, forming law-of-nature rules and initial-value numbers. But what these relationship symbols represent about the universe is quite different to what they represent to us because we have to put time and energy into calculating the "solutions" to mathematical equations, but in the universe there is no behind-the scenes calculations involving time and energy in order to arrive at the correct numerical values for outcomes. So what the multiplication symbol represents to us, and what it might represent to the universe, are 2 different things. So the square root relationship is not necessarily a difficult issue if you consider that multiplication of 2 identical categories giving a new category might be a reversible relationship from the point of view of the universe, and if you consider that numbers only exist as relationships, not as final results. So i, the square root of minus one, is not necessarily a difficult issue, if you want to assert that there is no Platonic realm. But the exponential relationship is more difficult to see.

I'm asserting that there is more to our universe than might be expected, and that belief in a Platonic realm underestimates the capabilities of our universe.

Time in a universe that generates its own rules

Models of the universe can clarify the nature of time in a universe that generates its own rules:

In a computer model of a small part of the universe, algorithms must be set up to run the law-of-nature rules i.e. to move the numeric values of the variables from one value to the next, and in addition, electric power must be applied to the system. But in the actual universe there is no behind-the-scenes electric power running the system, and no behind-the-scenes algorithms controlling the numeric values of the variables contained in the rules. Despite the fact that law-of-nature equations imply change is occurring, in the actual universe there is seemingly nothing forcing change in the system, nothing except the generation of new one-off local rules, which I contend is the way to describe what has happened with the outcomes of quantum randomness. I'm saying that the generation of new one-off local rules, re-initialising the values of one or more local variables, is what is moving the universe-system forward because the new numeric value(s) have a logical effect on other numeric values in the system. Further, I'm saying that the generation of new one-off local rules in effect generates time, leaving time always in the "Now".

Dear Lorraine,

It strikes me as significant that a "former computer analyst and programmer" describes the Universe in terms related to this former vocation. Perhaps this explains the essay's compositional strengths: clear and well-organized. Is this not what brings it to life!?

A few things in the essay and comment section give me the impression that you may be interested in studying Figure 6 (on page 8) in my essay, Rethinking the Universe. I call the figure a "Cosmic Everything Chart" and argue that the name is justified by its manifest connection to physical reality and the surrounding text.

One of the key things to notice in the Chart is the hierarchy of densities (rules?). Humans are located nearly in the middle of the whole as well as in the middle of the prominent stretch of objects of atomic/molecular density (where living things reside). The Chart indicates a relatively sharp turn at the Chandrasekhar Limit Mass (rule?), where gravity kicks prominently in. The upper right end of the chart is highly problematic for General Relativity (an inadequately tested system of rules?).

Note also that the Planck Mass is patently NOT on the chart. Lines are drawn to indicate the intersection where this (non-rule?) would lie. It is not on the Chart because it is not something ever to be found in the actual Universe.

Finally, as though to draw a distinction between an abstract set of rules and the PHYSICAL Universe, you state that "there is no behind-the-scenes electric power to run the system... In the actual Universe there is seemingly nothing forcing change in the system." You suggest that TIME arises by "the generation of new one-off local rules." Whereas, I would argue that gravity is what "runs the system" and embodies time. This is not how it is in the standard, hopelessly static "block Universe," of course. But it is how it is if accelerometers tell the truth about their state of motion.

Best of all, we can FIND OUT whether this latter view is valid or not by conducting the simple (and feasible) experiment proposed by Galileo in 1632.

Cheers,

Richard Benish

    Dear Richard,

    Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

    My view is that (what we symbolically represent as) initial value numbers, initial value rules, and law-of-nature rules are generated by the universe or elements of the universe (from particles to living things), because no Platonic realm exists to explain the source of numbers and rules. My view is that belief in a Platonic realm underestimates the capabilities of our universe, and therefore that belief in a Platonic realm skews our views about our universe.

    The logical consequence of these numbers and rules might well be depicted by your impressive Figure 6 (if what you depict is correct). But my essay is mainly about where the rules come from: it presents the view that it is a logical position to consider that the universe itself, and elements of the universe, that have literally generated/created these rules.

    Lorraine

    Dear Lorraine Ford,

    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

    Nice essay Ms Ford,

    Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg...

    1. The universe is not merely an open or a closed system, and not merely a thermodynamic system: the universe is all there is - an isolated system [1] that necessarily generates all its own rules.

    2. So it is not illogical to hypothesise that the universe itself must in some sense know, must in some sense be aware of, the rules it generates.

    etc...

    A Good idea, I fully agree with you, in fact I am also proposing the same............

    ..................... At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...in my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

    I think Universe is generating its own rules and has its consciousness.

    For your information Dynamic Universe model 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

    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 Lorraine,

      Thanks for your clear very readable essay. I can accept the conclusion of "emergence". But am hesitant to use it in my own essay ...I prefer to say "we do not know". And your take on AI is spot on!

      Good to see you in another contest.

      Don Limuti

        Hi Joe,

        I agree that "Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it", and I also agree with the Einstein quote: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." My essay take these types of ideas into consideration. I hope to find time to read your essay and comment on it.

        Lorraine

        Dear SNP Gupta,

        Thanks for your kind words about my essay. I hope to have a look at your essay, as soon as I can.

        Lorraine.

        Thanks Steve,

        Glad you liked my essay. I have a 2 metre high Amaranthus caudatus flowering in my garden at the moment: I like it even though it is a bit of a weed that self-seeds every year.

        Best wishes,

        Lorraine

        Thanks Don,

        I am also glad to see you in the contest again this year. I actually agree with you about "emergence": there seem to be a lot of confident claims made that a purely deterministic type of emergence exists (many in this essay contest, supported by impressive-looking diagrams and tables and research papers), but I am skeptical about what they say. Naturally, only more complex versions of what already exists could "emerge". My contention is that there is necessarily a choice aspect to "emergent" molecules, not just deterministic aspects.

        I enjoyed your essay, though I haven't yet conmmented on it on your essay page. I haven't rated any essays yet either.

        Lorraine

        Dear Lorraine,

        I am very impressed by your essay; to me, it is one of the best here. Your pronounced will to clear and distinctive statements and derivations, your ability to reach that, make your treatise very special and of highest rank in my eyes. I appreciate and share your criticism of the materialistic neo-Darwinist picture with its emergences out of nothing. Your rare understanding of deep unity between metaphysics and ethics, which I clearly saw in several places, is also common to us, and also very valuable for me. Because of all that, and notwithstanding my serious disagreement with panpsychism, I give your essay a high score. To avoid repeating here what was already said in our essay, I am inviting you to my page, where your comments, as critical as you like, would be highly appreciated.

        Good luck,

        Alexey Burov.

          Lorraine,

          I really liked and enjoyed your very original proposition that the universe continues to generate it's own rules. But I never quite seemed to find 'why' you suggest it does so or needs to do so apart from 'quantum uncertainty'. Perhaps that's enough, but did I miss anything else?

          So you write; " the single outcomes of quantum randomness also have the status of "necessity" if you hypothesise that a one-off local rule for each outcome has been generated by the universe, a rule that can be represented by an equation that resets the numeric value for the "uncertain" system variable. It's certainly true that QM currently doesn't and can't predict individual interaction outcomes, but do you not think that may be a result of our inadequate understanding of the interactions?

          I also applauded your reminder that; "sloppy definitions of information persist: computers do not actually process information - they process representations of information; computer programs do not actually generate rules - they can only generate representations of rules. But then if we step ahead consider AI and the ability to 'learn' via a feedback process, do you think that can closely model our own learning mechanism?, or not?

          I address that and most of the above in my own essay which I hope you'll follow and like. I also propose the layered structure of propositional dynamic logic (PDL) as fundamental (you may recall my analogy with arithmetical brackets last year). You show some understanding of logic so I'd appreciate your views.

          Well done and thank you for yours.

          Peter

            Dear Alexey,

            Thanks very much for that.

            I'm looking forward to reading your essay,

            Lorraine

            Hello Peter,

            Glad you liked my essay. Thanks for that.

            Re "did I miss anything else?":

            If oneself is entirely of-a-continuous-lawful-piece with the rest of reality, then no amount of philosophical gymnastics can turn this topology into "free will". Free will requires that a thing possesses the lawful power (i.e. the same status as a law-of-nature) to move itself in relationship to the rest of reality. Clearly, this is a power that even fundamental particles have: these are the outcomes that look random to an observer. Free will also requires us to acknowledge that the power to make laws resides within the universe, not in a mythical Platonic realm.

            Re AI:

            My point is that AI doesn't actually generate rules, it generates models/representations of rules, and models/representations of learning, and it processes models/representations of information. This is as opposed to actual "living" rules (e.g. laws-of-nature), and "living" information (i.e. subjective experience).

            Will read your essay as soon as I can.

            Lorraine

            Lorraine,

            Thanks for an enjoyable read. I am in complete agreement with you regarding constraints affecting behavior. That is the basis of catalysts and enzymes and probably all biological functions.

            I am puzzled by what you mean regarding "one-off" rules. A rule is something applied repeatedly. How can a rule be "one-off"? This may simply be a question of semantics. Saying "one-off" event might have the same general meaning that you intend.

            Can you provide an example of such a "one-off" rule or event as it pertains to physics or chemistry?

            Is there a measureable difference between a random event and a "one-off" rule or event? How can you know the difference between the two conceptions?

            Your motivation seems to be as a means of explaining some of the oddities from QM. Can an individual particle make a choice? Can an electron choose to be either up-spin or down-spin for example. Can a photon choose its path through the two-slit experiment?

            Best Regards and Good Luck,

            Gary Simpson

              Gary,

              Thanks for taking a look at my essay.

              Re "one-off" local rules:

              One way of looking at the situation in the universe might be in terms of possibilities and constraints: existing "law-of-nature" rules have constrained almost all possibility, but there are still gaps which require local fixing with one-off local rules to constrain "quantum randomness". We would represent such a one-off local rule with an equation that resets the value of one of the "uncertain" system variables to a new numeric value. Up-spin/down-spin outcomes and photon path outcomes in the two-slit experiment are examples of possibility having been locally constrained.

              Atoms and molecules and living structure are also further local constraints on possibility, but it is these constraints on possibility that allows the development of the structure. As structure progresses, all further constraints on possibility seemingly require existing rules plus new rules.

              But where are the rules and knowledge of the rules coming from? I'm saying that it is the structure itself that knows and creates new rules, while the structure itself embodies existing rules. The structure "knows" because rules are in effect categories, i.e. categories of knowledge, i.e. concepts, subjective experience.

              Lorraine

              Lorraine,

              If you have not done so, you should take a look at the essay by Peter Punin. He presents the question of the first occurrence of a new event. The nomenclature is very formal.

              Best Regards and Good Luck,

              Gary Simpson

              Gary,

              I'll have a look at Peter Punin's essay.

              But why the belief that what drives reality lies in greener pastures far away in a Platonic realm? Why the belief that our universe has no inherent capability? Why the belief that it's all happening somewhere else? What does that mean about your attitude to our here and now situation? I fear that you are intellectually and emotionally attached to the wrong (hypothetical) place.

              See my above post entitled Numbers in a universe without a Platonic realm where I say: "Physics can be seen as the discovery of actual relationships that exist in the universe; but mathematics can be seen as the discovery of the properties and nature of all possible types of relationships that can be represented symbolically, where the vast majority of these potential relationships don't actually exist in the universe." Mathematics merely symbolically represents possible relationships; but the actual universe has generated "living" relationships, not symbols of relationships.

              Lorraine