Dear Philip,

I've only just got round to reading your essay which Jonathan had recommended to me. We do have a similar philosophy, but you have gone into the maths a lot which I have not as yet. I have two comments. Firstly, when I was a post-doc at the Univ. of Illinois working with Kadanoff on critical phenomena, Kadanoff was just developing his recursive view of critical points, according to which behaviour at one level generated behaviour at a higher level, which would come to a limit in the manner you describe. Kadanoff's ideas led in due course to the renormalisation group.

Secondly, as regards the mathematical side, in the discussion of my own essay earlier today I posted the idea that we need to get used to the fact that at the deeper levels nature is biological and very messy, with quantitative maths rarely seen. But has since occurred to me that we need to look further and train ourselves to see it in Ilexa Yardley's terms, which I talked about a bit in my FFP15 lecture, which can be viewed at https://youtu.be/-Bv5vsZzX6Q. She speaks of a highly complex structure involving entities, systems and processes, perhaps hierarchical though she says it is wrong to view any hierarchy as linear. But anyway she sees all this structure as aspects of circle, itself viewed in a complicated way, but we can perhaps pick up particular aspects such as (a) the cycle (temporal aspect) and (b) rotation about an axis getting us back to the start (spatial aspect). It is also in some aspect the source of regularity in nature, possibly related to the fact that repetition, when it can happen, develops skills. Ilexa would argue that circle is the most fundamental aspect of mathematics, citing in effect how our concepts get more and more complex through the way systems develop. I think when one fully learns to see things the way she does this will make sense. If these comments don't make sense, think about elementary maths, e.g. set theory with its Venn diagrams made up our of circles, and then understanding sets of numbers by seeing unit things as sets.

    Dear Brian, thank you for reading my essay and for the comment, thanks also to Jonathan for the recommendation.

    I have watched your video and do see some convergence of ideas. The iterative cycles and normalization group are very important. Jonathan has this in his Mandlebrot theory too. These ideas come up in different places and different related forms because they are universal. Universality is a central idea for me. Most fundamentally it comes up for me in an underlying meta-law for physics where I suspect that the cycle of iterations could be an algebraic form of quantisation.

    The relationship between biology and physics is newer to me. It came up more strongly in the previous essay contest. When people talk about the interface between physics and biology it is not always clear what form they think this takes. There is a range of options which fall roughly on a scale from strong to weak. The strongest would be something like an unknown physical force field that is responsible for consciousness. A more subtle connection would work through quantum mechanics and measurement. I can set up an apparatus to measure the spin of electrons. If I then swear to spend the rest of my life studying consciousness ( or something more dramatic ) if the experiment measures an up spin three times, could that bias the result? I don't have the answer.

    Even weaker connections might take the form of the anthropic principle or even just analogies, but these things are still very profound. One thing that I do see is that the link involves information. Semiotics is new to me but it seems to be about information in biology. Information is absolutely fundamental and there is no distinction between the kind of information that influences biology and information in physics, so that must be at least one part of the answer.

    I am looking at how information as fundamental can answer questions about the most fundamental laws of physics, but it is impossible to avoid talking about biological experience as part of that picture.

    Hi, Philip.

    You describe the particle zoo like it would be the result of an observer situated in an old universe.... the only thing surviving would then be the information, or guidings... it is a very cool view. Maybe we can link it to the black hole and its informational paradox, and a way to see on information?

    "If so, then the physics probed in particle colliders is barely more fundamental in kind than the workings of biology that evolved from the initial chemical accidents of abiogenesis." Yes, it is how I started to Think, or was FORCED to Think, rather, when comparing to biology.

    I also started to look at general relativity like this. https://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Relativity-Including-Relativistic-Non-Symmetric/dp/0691120277/ref=reader_auth_dp

    A non-symmetric field? We are so used to look at the symmetry and see gravitation as 'the distorter' but can it be the other way? It is Worth pondering. Can then gravitation 'survive' from one epoch to Another, and carry the information with it?

    Can a process be the fundamental thing, not particles? Processes are described by constants, couplings, interferences, liftings, in one Word - complexity, but that requires and open system, and asymmetry. See my essay.

    It is an interesting journey to try to gain general relativity and quantum mechanics through analyzing BIOLOGY :) Sounds odd? Yes, it is strange, but well Worth the effort.

    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093 my essay :)

    Enjoying Reading this, thanks.

    Ulla Mattfolk.

      Dear Philip,

      Thanks for this original, thorough and well argued essay.

      Thank you for pointing out some long overdue problems with the intuitive reductionist approach. I am glad that you point out, for instance, that "the hypothesis has been further bolstered by the observation that the laws of particles physics are unnaturally fine-tuned". I follow a falsificationist approach, namely a deductivist methodology in science that allows (in your words) "mathematics [to] guide the way until the experimental outlook improves".

      So, I think that there are pretty interesting similarities between our essays, and I would be most grateful to have your opinion about my work.

      Your idea that "Reality is relative to the observer" is indeed one of the most promising directions of investigation in the modern foundations of physics. I find a particular affinity with a recent proposal by Brukner that there are "no facts of the world per se, but only relative to an observer" (If you havent seen this yet, please see https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05255).

      I definitely rate you high.

      I wish you the best of luck, and I hope to hear from you soon for a discussion.

      Best wishes,

      Flavio

      Dear Philip,

      Thank you for reading and commenting my essay.

      Your question "Symmetry of space and time means that the laws of physics are unchanging over space and time. If that were not the case it would be hard to do science. Does this mean that symmetry must be fundamental?聽" is linked to the approach you have in your essay.

      "symmetry is agebraic" you say, so it is part of a "language" that is an intermediate between thinking and reality (both emerging phenomena). In my approach fine-tuning is an essential result of the Reality Loop the agent is part of. (if its was not fine-tuned the agent would be a different agent in a different reality loop. One of the languages agents are using to explain this fine-tuned reality is emerging algebra (symmetry).

      You argue "I expect to find this symmetry in a pre-geometric meta-law that transcends spacetime,taking a purely algebraic form, only beyond that point will it be emergent, rising from immutable relationships between systems of information." Indeed in this approach symmetry transcends space-time because space and time are (dimensional) restrictions (emerging from total simultaneity), and algebra/symmetry/thinking are not limited by these restrictions because they are the "cause" through consciousness of reality. The what you are calling "immutable relationships between systems of information" is maybe too strictly bound to our emerging reality. My approach places the "rising" outside our reality, so even more foundational.

      "If those leaders say that symmetry is unimportant because it is emergent or that geometry is more fundamental than algebra, other possibilities may be neglected."

      Fully agreed, every emerging phenomenon is essential in a specific reality. Geometry is a description methodology, to be compared to filling in data in a computer, it is the software (thinking) that is concluding.

      Best regards Philip nd good luck in the contest.

      Wilhelmus

        Thanks for the interesting answer and good luck in the contest.

        Biology doesn't demand exact laws

        Firstly, I agree that recursion is important in physics. But inexactness has a role to play in the natural world as well. To quote from my own essay (in note 4): "In the context of technology, high precision may sometimes be necessary to achieve particular aims, necessitating the use of special methodologies. Biological systems can survive without such high precision, but a degree of constraint is necessary nevertheless. While precision has its value in the biological context, high levels of precision may not be necessary for survival.". However, mathematical properties may emerge in the limit through recursion, and the ones that prevail are the ones that are significant from the viewpoint of 'good design', since favourable consequences make it more possible for nature to loop back (consider for example the way languages tend to use words only to the degree that they have a role to play in the activities of a community). Investigation of the reciprocality between maths and biology is the main aim of the IBIOSA project (see http://inbiosa.eu/).

          Dear Philip,

          One again that time of year to bug you:) If you had seen my essay you can strike what I am about to say. Otherwise I am going to save you the trouble right here. based on the conversation you had with Dickau. I say

          "The system can use both Real and Integer numbers, and in both systems you always get finite answer no matter how high your energy goes as when using Real mainly because the energy represented by line length summed up according to weights dictated by the interaction makes the short segments naturally lose their effect in long range interactions and the energies never blow up, even in short range.

          As can be seen in the simulation of the electron mass (actually mp/me ratio) simulation the system is scale invariant, that is multiply the D0/D1 by any number the linearity makes the system scale invariant and you basically you get the same curves i.e. if you zoom in(or out) you get exactly the same curves. That is, when you are doing the electromagnetic interaction i.e. line crossing you always get the proton/electron ratio. because of the two special location which could be some phase change "

          second

          "Now suppose I ask you to tell me what will happen to some "object", but I don't tell you anything about it (how fundamental can you get) !! like what mass it has or what it will do if another thing is present. Ok, I'll give it a try. First I will say I will "invent a coordinate and since I don't know where it exists I will restrict it to be in some range and eventually make that range variable. This lonely thing would have a meaningless existence. i.e. it needs a partner. If we add another one next to it with similar setup and at some distance that can also be varied. Now, we can calculate all relative information just like our original idea in the essay.

          Kaboom! both situations reached the same conclusion with generalization leading to all of physics ( at least the important) QM, QFT, Gravity like shown. In one instance we acted like GOD and decided to design a dynamic universe, in the other we are ignorant humans but figured out how things should work, and both match and are the FUNDAMENTAL building block. "

          Thank you in all cases. and just in case

          https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127

          I

            Sorry, FQXI's editor ate the formatting and some letters:(

            Dear Philip Gibbs

            Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

            My essay is titled

            "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged for prospect and for novely.

            Thank you & kind regards

            Steven Andresen

            Thank you Philip,

            I am not a schooled mathematicien like you are.

            So I wonder if the "model" I approached might be valuable.

            It is of course only one of the many that exist, but the human intelligence

            is at this joint of time just a like a baby, we are all struggling with finding the

            foundational essence of our reality, we see the rattle above our craddle, we reach out but still cannot touch it....(this contest is an exellent example of this reaching out...)

            I rated you already on january 13, and hope that you will find my approach also good enough for a valuation.

            thank you

            Wilhelmus

            Philip,

            Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest so far. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I did on 1/23.

            Luck in the contest.

            Jim Hoover

            Dear Philipp,

            very nice and thought-inspiring essay. I was wondering whether by arguing stories are fundamental you believe that information is fundamental. As I'm arguing in my essay information usually has some perspectival elements to it and - as far as we now - needs a medium or information carrier. My stance would be that this medium is more fundamental at least than the information dependent on perspective. You seem to argue that such a medium is equivalent to „nothing" and actually I also consider this possibility. I would argue though that this would be only correct if „physically possible" would be equivalent to „logically possible". While this might be the case I believe we can`t take this for granted.

            Anyway, a very nice read! Heinrich

              quote

              Every possibility is assigned a probability. These are derived from the squared norm of a component

              in a wave function. Observables become operators, states become vectors, sets become functions,

              objects become morphisms. In physics we call this process "quantisation." It is closely related to the

              mathematical notions of exponentiation, abstraction and categorification. Even probabilities

              themselves may be uncertain, so they too are given a probability distribution. The process can be

              repeated to give us iterated quantisation, higher abstractions and n-categories. To understand the

              origins of physics we must define this recursion more precisely in algebraic terms and see how the

              physics of space, time and particles can emerge from it with specific features of our universe

              understood as processes of information collection. The fundamental laws of the universe are then

              uniquely determined by invariance under quantisation [4]

              end of quote

              Very interesting point. What I tried to do was to find , using Klauders enhanced quantization, a way to bound the behavior of classical physics, via a quantum analogue, as to the emergence of of the cosmological constant.

              My essay is of December 21st. As a favor to me, could you critique my essay as given in FQXI, in terms of your above mentioned procedure?

              Thanks

              Andrew

                Dear Philip,

                some water into the wine of positive comments. In the following quote: "I expect to find this symmetry in a pre-geometric meta-law that transcends spacetime,taking a purely algebraic form, only beyond that point will it be emergent, rising from immutable relationships between systems of information" there feature at least six to eight terms that either are entirely undefined (e.g. pre-geometric meta-law) or at least have multiple, varied and even opposing meanings. I have roughly 'calculated' the number of possible meanings of just this sentence to be of the order of millions. The number of possible meanings of your essay is of course magnitudes bigger.

                So, your essay appears to me much like a box full up with words marketed as a novel.

                Hence your conclusion: "From there [the above] our understanding returns full circle to the nature of our experience and our personal life stories" reads something like: believe me that no less than six angles can dance on the top of a pin.

                Heinrich

                  Many theorists agree that space-time geometry could be emerge from something else. That structure is often therefore described as "pregeometric." I.e. It is a common generic term in physics used to describe any hypothetical theory in which space and time is emergent. Wikipedia is always a good place to turn to when you don't understand a term and in this case it gives several good examples of mainstream pregeometric theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregeometry_(physics)

                  "The meta-laws" here just mean the theory of this pregeometry. They are meta-laws in the sense that the laws of physics we know are just one possibility of what could emerge from the meta-laws. They exist at a deeper level. I am talking here about theory whose exact form is unknown so in that sense it does have multiple meaning, but what I am saying applies generically to whatever those meta-laws are. Again the term "meta-laws" is in common use although it is less common than "pregeometry"

                  I think the meaning of my statement that it takes a purely algebraic form should be clear enough. If it is pregeometric is should not be a theory of geometry so it could be algebraic or combinatorial or something else. Quantum mechanics is very much algebraic so once the geometry has been transcended it seems reasonable to expect that what underlies the theory from which it emerges will be algebraic.

                  I don't think "relationships between systems of information" is very ambiguous even though I do not describe those systems in general. Also I think the words "symmetry" and "immutable" are unambiguous.

                  Possibly the problem here is not that this can mean different things, but rather that I am referring to generic concepts where the detailed implementation of the ideas is not yet worked out. I don't see how this can be avoided given the essay topic which forces us to consider questions of what fundamental means when we don't yet have a complete fundamental theory of physics to work from. I am pleased that others seem to have understood some of what I say in that context and sorry that you have not.

                  Thanks for you comment. I already read your essay and made one comment, but hopefully I will find time to give it another read in the context of your comment and perhaps say more.

                  Numbers are always used to count things or measure them, yet in mathematics we can study the properties of numbers in their own right without reference to what is being counted or measured. This is abstraction.

                  Information also needs a carrier and it needs to be about something, but it has its own generic properties independently of these. The same information can be transmitted by radio waves or stored in a disk. We don't have to take that into account if we are computing the entropy of a bit stream.

                  I am not saying that you are wrong about the medium being more fundamental. I am just saying that because of abstraction it does not have to be.

                  Another interesting question is whether information can have meaning without some way of interpreting it. A compressed bitstream appears random and is impossible to extract meaning from, but uncompressed data may eb able to convey a message without an interpreter. Remember the film "Contact" where they picked up an alien communication that started with prime numbers and then moved on to other forms of information that could be understood. If the information was about pure mathematics that could even work across universes if there were some way of transferring bit streams between them. The key to making sense is to use redundancy and universal concepts like prime numbers that inevitably arise in the mind of any mathematician no matter what form of being they are.

                  Thanks for your comment. i will have a look at your essay.

                  Dear Philip,

                  You give very deep ontological ideas in the spirit of Cartesian doubt. I believe that this is the right way to overcome the crisis of understanding in the foundations of knowledge. I invite you to see my ideas of ontological с, where the "logos" - "metalaw" creates from the matter another alternative model of Ideality.

                  All the best,

                  Vladimir