Mass, Space and Time in a Virtual Universe (Simulation Hypothesis) by Malcolm Macleod

Dear Malcolm Macleod,

You wrote in the Abstract: "It is necessary and sufficient to have three basic units in order to reproduce in an experimentally meaningful way the dimensions of all physical quantities"

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly devised finite mathematics ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Hello Malcolm

I found aspects of this essay interesting, but couldn't find where you argued about Descartes's inability to say 'ergo sum' which was an area of interest. I think there may be something in your work, in that my own work provides a graph theoretic universal model, and an equivalent 1-space model, and has higher dimensional intepretations, so structures develop from the geometry, as you suggest. The simulation aspects seem to connect, but I couldn't make sense of parts. Because of this, while I am an essay author, I won't be rating your essay. That is, I can't tell how good it is, though I recognise that explaining such abstractions can be very challenging. My essay is at https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3041 so you might be able to build your simulation model using the elements of my Harmony Set. If so, you may come up with something very surprising next time, if that helps.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Dear Malcolm;

You propose a very interesting model for establishing a universal Unit System. Besides that you have made a point that most scientists overlook: "Measurement requires a contrast". All measurements in physics refer to the value of a parameter against the background or compared to an arbitrary reference. Normally they confuse those parameters with the reality. And you pointed it out very well when you stated "If these are base units then in a physical universe there should be an attribute of mass-ness, of time-ness, of space-ness etc from which a definition of 'physical' may then be constructed. I commend you for that.

But I have to admit, probably because I do not have a computer science background, I did not understand your virtual universe model. Even though I think it is a very good idea to computer simulate model of the universe based in new concepts of the basic reality to see which of them predict observable conditions that actually occur. Something like Wolfram's "A new Kind of science".

I encourage you to move in that direction.

Yours;

Diogenes

Hi Malcolm

I think looking for something fundamental in physics like the unit system is important. However, in my system which you can think of as simulation, the units and their relations appear automatically and they follow pretty much the standard known physics. Please check my essay to see if it makes any sense. Thanks

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

P.S. the link you have given for the simulation appear to be broken.

Hi Malcolm Macleod

Very interesting essay on "Mass, Space and Time in a Virtual Universe, The virtual universe which you discussed here is really a special case of the mathematical universe, with these units as sum to unity, units = 1, the analogy being a computer game," is good read dear Malcolm Macleod

............. very nice idea.... In dynamic Universe Model also thousands of simulations done... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity... You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-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 GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Dear Malcolm

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Malcolm,

Quite brilliant ..I think! My skills are focussed elsewhere than maths but I understood and loved your original approach and 'out of the box the boxes came in' thinking.

Have you been involved in antenna design, and the near/far field TZ position at any lambda? I don't deal with it here but previous essays have derived a rationale similarly beyond constricted doctrinal thinking. (this years was a test which the model passed, but also beyond entrenched belief this time in in weirdness!).

I agree your central thesis; "a virtual Descartes has no fundamental reference to which he may point and then state; ergo sum". which is a plague on understanding including SR. I've gone so far as suggesting and rationalised a sequence of local background inertial systems which overcomes that and other problems, identifying them as bounded by near/far field transition '2-plasma fernmion 'shocks' and 'surface charge'. Rule 1. All electron re-emissiona are at local centre of mass c. Crazy? As Bohr said; valid for us both "Yes, but is it crazy enough to be true?"

Well done for yours, penciled in for a good boost. I do hope you get to mine.

Very best.

Peter