Hylozoic universe suggests new future for mathematical game theory by Lee Bloomquist

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?

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."

Please visit the Wetten interview, equation "it =(qubit,it).

IT=(BIT, IT)

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.

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