Dear Lee Bloomquist,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Lee, your essay is a bit short and would have benefited from more explanation. In particular the link to the HK video is not explained. Essays need to be more self-contained.

However, there are some interesting ideas here. Your message seems to be that the universe emerges from game theory played between selfs. Is that accurate?

It would have been good to hear more about how coalgebras are relevant. I also think coalgebras are important. They are dual to algebras and together they form bialgebras.

Using non-wellfounded set theory is courageous. They can easily lead to paradoxes.

    Yes.

    ***

    Mr. Gibbs,

    You write as if you are my assigned judge. Yet as a judge of fundamental physics you make no mention of the two equations in the essay: "self = (self)" and "self = (thinking, self)".

    Please consider:

    Have you seen these equations anywhere else?

    Lee,

    A nice change from most. I suspect Thales was right all along about the 'underlying fluid'. I've certainly found a logical consistency.

    I'm also a fan of game theory. Are there any new rules for this one?

    And I've checked through your equations and can't find any mistakes. I am therefore I think! (I think). I think and hope as an engineer you may like mine.

    Very best

    Peter

    ps. (I claim not to be a robot but is there really a difference?, ...and if so is that not discrimination?)

      Hello Peter,

      The equation "self = (self)" is an abstract model of Helen Keller before learning the word "w-a-t-e-r". And "self = (thinking, self)" is an abstract model of Helen after learning the word "w-a-t-e-r."

      The Born rule can be modeled as a game with rules called Probability Learning, well studied years ago in the lab. I wrote a little about applying Probability Learning to the Born rule for the contest here about math, titled "Simple math for questions to physicists."

      Some might be uncomfortable with the "self" in "self = (thinking, self)". For particles following the Born rule, instead of "self" you could use "it"--

      it = (bit, it)

      This is the obverse of John Wheeler's idea, "it from bit." (Which Ed Witten talked about in an interview available on the web.)

      "it = (bit, it)" says instead that once you have an "it", then "it = (bit, it)" means that a particle following the Born rule produces a stream of "bits" from the "it."

      In the interview, Witten also talks about the diagram Wheeler used in conjunction with "it from bit"-- an eye with an arrow of seeing circling around to see itself. So circularity seems to be common to both Wheeler's "it from bit" and the non-wellfounded set "it = (bit, it)."

      More on applying non-wellfounded sets to game theory is in the book by Barwise and Moss, "Vicious Circles: On the Mathematics of Non-Wellfounded Phenomena."

      Lee,

      Fascinating. I'll look it up after the contest.

      My own essay derives the Born rule and uncertainty mechanistically from the 4 part angular momentum (orthogonal orbital velocity) distribution on a rotating sphere surface.

      Do give me your response to that.

      Thanks

      Peter

      5 days later

      Lee - An interesting start to the essay, but it would have been nice to see the ideas fleshed out. So perhaps we can think of reality as a "fluid-like" medium of fields, with "stuff" being the flowing motion of the fields. However, the flowing motion shows a quality of "agency" - an intentionality at work. The flowing motion shows what - intelligence? - purpose?

      Indeed, I think the findings of complexity theory suggest a flowing intentionality is at work - but the truths are hidden from this in the paradoxes of self-identity and recursiveness.....

      Regards - George Gantz

        Note: Before reading the following, please see the linked text for how manipulations of the text IT=(BIT, IT) produce a stream of bits.-- e.g., IT=(((((((BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT, IT))))))).

        ***

        IT=(BIT, IT) as a way to operationalize John Wheeler's IT FROM BIT feels like a science of simplicity.

        IT=(BIT, IT) uses only two "words"-- BIT and IT-- while E=MC(squared) uses three-- "E," "M," and "C." A sign of simpicity?

        Perhaps another:

        If IT=(BIT, IT) were to become an acceptable model of the Universe, someone in engineering would know immediately that something is missing. Nothing comes for free - every engineering project has a budget, every engine needs fuel. But in this equation for the Universe, a stream of bits seems to come out of nothing.

        Engineering would suspect there's an engine, somehow invisible to us, which produces this stream. Further there must be fuel-- again somehow invisible to us-- to feed the engine. And again, by the laws of thermodynamics, there must be an exhaust stream-- again, somehow invisible to us. Because every engine is inefficient and as a result, every engine produces an exhaust stream.

        Now replace above phrases like "which is invisble to us" with adjective "dark"--

        The engine that drives the stream IT=(BIT, IT) is made of matter. Dark matter.

        We call the exhaust stream-- which escapes to expand the Universe-- dark energy.

        Take one equation; apply the laws of thermodynamics; its a story of dark matter and energy.

        When IT=(BIT, IT) these two enter the picture immediately.

        10 days later

        Lee,

        Yours shouldn't be last! My score going on now.

        Best

        Peter

        2 months later

        This is a learning process. My latest posts are in the threads on alternative models of cosmology and alternative models of reality.

          4 days later

          I posted an example in the alternative models of cosmology thread:

          Example: "System" or "space-time," which is more "fundamental"?

          Write a Reply...