Dear Conrad, so nice to meet you again! Once again, you make me think...

> The key issue in your essay seems to be - to what extent is what happens in the world determined by rules?

Yes and no, I only partially agree. Your question, as well as the initial part of my essay, seem to imply that there is one such thing as "what happens", and that it makes sense to ask whether that thing, whatever it be, is governed by rules. But we know for a fact that only some of the things that happen are determined by rules: the things (the systems) that we describe within the language of the rules. If we choose the wrong variables in physics we cannot predict anything. So the ability to predict goes hand in hand with the ability to choose the right variables (and this is closely connected to your essay, by the way!). As a consequence, we tend to think that the variables that can be predicted (the variables that follow the rules) are the "right" variables, they are the ones that truly capture the essence of what exists, the ones with prominent ontological status. But then comes quantum mechanics, to tell us that we, our experiences and our histories do not qualify. If the essence of the universe is that that can be predicted, we (individually) do not belong to the essential set. The essence is all what we could have been, all what we could have lived, all that could have happened. Moreover, there are different versions of all these ensembles, depending on who is the observer and how they observe. (?)

> So even before we get to quantum mechanics, there's a gap between what our algorithms can do and what the physical world can do.

Yes, this is absolutely true. But I have not focused on this aspect, because if we have the right equations, our algorithms can get better and better, progressively approaching the "right" solution (assuming there is one such thing) just by increasing computational power (decreasing the integration time step, increasing the precision of all the numbers involved, etc). We shall never manage it, we may always be far away from the solution, but at least we can establish a methodology for progressively approach the solution. It may be exponentially hard to get actual improvements, we may need unlimited resources, ok. But different is the quantum indeterminacy, which we cannot even approach...

By the way, did you read the "Three body problem"? Is that where you got your example from? I have read the first volume, and am waiting to receive the other two, so please don't give me spoilers. I very much enjoyed it, also because I used to work in the three body problem long long ago (no kidding!).

I very much like the Escher's Drawing Hands images that often come to my mind when I read what you say. In my entry, in your essay, in last year's essay. And those images trigger a whole lot of thoughts in me, which I will try to condense and share with you at your entry some time soon. I read your essay, and really liked it. Also, because I see the connection with last year, and by now, I am also more familiar with the context of your thoughts :-)

More soon!

Inés.

Dear Aditya, thanks for reading and commenting. I am somewhat behind with the reading in this context, but I'll make sure to read and comment on (at least) all the essays that have a computational flavour.

more soon!

inés.

Hello Ines,

it looks that we developed in parallel the same concept. namely algorithmic approach. I believe that this is a consequence of the fact that algorithmic information theory is a well established science which empowered computer science as well as mathematics and physics. Its use to assess the concept of "being fundamental" looks straightforward to those coming from that field, so it is natural that more Essays were based on this common ground. I think we may consider this as the most obvious and conservative, but at the same time solid, output of the Essay Contest. In my case I adopt such principle to assess the real level of understanding achieved through deep learning, which to me required an assessment from an epistemic perspective after the huge development and the expectations around it, but I agree that such principle is general.

I strongly agree with you that "Simply because by postulating their existence we may reproduce a lot of the observed data. The same holds for mass, energy, momentum, and for all the intermediate entities that we do not necessarily observe, but that are generated by the program as a means to interpolate between the events we do observe"

A bit less when you say: "In quantum mechanics, when an observer makes a measurement, different versions of him or her become entangled with the different possible outcomes of the experiment [18, 19]." To my knowledge there is no C*-algebra which accounts for both a quantum (non commutative algebra without identity) and a classical (commutative algebra with identity) object in the same time, so it is difficult to follow you unless you declare what is the space you are using to describe your system and you show that is it mathematically consistent.

Overall, very nice work.

My best regards

E.

    dear Ines,

    I think my essay is the most relevant to yours. I derive QM, QFT, gravity from the same system through a mathematical structure using computer simulation. The programs are available in JavaScript and are modifiable.

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

      Inés - such a pleasure to hear from you again!

      I haven't yet read the 3-body novels, though they're on my list. But how interesting that you worked on this problem. At one point it was a revelation to me to discover it, and realize that physics is in a sense far more powerful than mathematics. One can of course create quite complex worlds through computer algorithms... but you don't do it the way our physical world does, operating everything through one-on-one relationships between individuals, because that becomes computationally intractable very fast.

      You're right that this isn't a practical issue, since we have computers already that can model interactions between millions of stars. But what it means to me is that "the essence of the universe" is not only the algorithmic part, which constantly generates possibilities. The other part is that whenever there's a context of given facts in which some new fact becomes measurable, the possibilities "collapse" into some particular subset, which then contributes "initial conditions" for generating new possibilities. As an analogy, the genome of a species contains the possibility of creating countless genetically distinct organisms, but only a small subset of these are born and reproduce their DNA, recreating the species genome.

      This kind of dual dynamics - generating possibilities for random selection that generates more specific possibilities - is apparently far more powerful than any deterministic algorithm. And if this is essentially what's going on in the world, then you and I are definitely part of it.

      Nonetheless, your essay expresses a deep personal attachment to the old idea of the world as governed by reasons. That's the feeling at the heart of Western thought all along, and I was lucky enough to inherit it from both my parents. Happily, the world is such that our ways of conceiving the reasons keep on needing to evolve.

      Looking forward to your comments on my essay, and on Marc's etc. But no rush!

      Conrad

      Dear Ines Samengo

      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 on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

      Thank you & kind regards

      Steven Andresen

        Dear Prof Ines Samengo....

        You wrote wonderful words sir....." Algorithmically, this means that a computer program simulating the dynamics of a certain physical system must be able to predict experimental results. ..... This algorithmic view of the construction of physical theories may be paralleled with the development of formal systems in mathematics. The parallelism between the two disciplines may even be stretched as far as to question the realism of the most basic ontological entities in the phenomena accessible to us......."

        May I say these algorithms may be part of Consciousness ..... nice thinking sir...

        Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope 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

        Hi, Enrico, thanks for reading and commenting. Yes, your essay caught my attention as soon as it came out, for its algorithmic approach, and the deep learning ingredient (I work in computational neuroscience), which I found interesting. It is so good to see other people talking the same language! Unfortunately, I am presently traveling, so I could not read your essay properly (I did scan over it, and it is in my short list of selected ones), but will sure do so before the contest ends, I'll leave you my comments there.

        When talking about the measuring process, I am taking the purely quantum mechanical approach. When a higher-order observer watches a measuring process (which is, I believe, the proper way to describe measurements), he/she sees a the lower level observer in a superposition of states, one for each possible outcome of the measurement. This is Wigner's description of the measurement, as well as von Neuman's and Everett's, I believe.

        Ok, I send this now, and will come back to you at your entry soon!

        inés.

        Dear Ines,

        Thank you for your essay. It really has made me think since this perspective of relating axioms and theorems in a mathematical system to our description of physics is new to me. In the beginning, I would have expected the analogy to hold well, but somewhere in the middle (in fact before reaching QM) I began to have my doubts. This is something I will have to ponder further. In this sense your essay is a great success, it is making me think. Thank you for that!

        I cannot quite put my finger on what concerns me about the analogy. Part of it undoubtedly is my inherent distrust in the "X is like a Computer" paradigm. I was struck when you briefly considered string theory with its 10^N landscapes as a single theory. You had mentioned Bayesian inference at one point. But evaluating a program (as a predictive model) should really be done by considering the Bayesian evidence and not any Kolmogorov complexity. So there are some problems lurking about there.

        I am still writing, which means that I am still thinking. So thank you again!

        Sincerely,

        Kevin Knuth

          Thanks Steven, I will surely go through it.

          Best!

          inés.

          Ok, I would be happy to know your thoughts if they develop further. May I suggest one reason why you may believe there is something fishy with my approach? Perhaps something related to what you discussed in your essay? That there is no principled way to distinguish between initial conditions and laws? You've called them contingent and determined laws, and I am not fully sure they map on my initial conditions and physical laws or on my axioms and inference rules. But the whole thing circles around the idea that distinguishing between these two aspects, no matter how we call them, requires a previous notion of what is possible and what is not.

          This is just a suggestion, maybe you are thinking about something else. But this is one point that was highlighted to me with your essay - and I have fun discussing for and against myself.

          Thanks!

          inés.

          One more coment, Kevin. I do not propose to use Kolmogorov complexity to evaluate the predictive ability of a model, I propose it as a means to evaluate the conceptual depth of a theory, already assuming that the program predicts the data well. That's all for now!

          inés.

          Hi, Conrad, I do agree that my essay expresses something like a traditional view, perhaps old fashioned. I also agree in that such a "mechanistic" view of the universe (and of logic, and of reasoning) is what western societies have mostly been searching for all along, and is the kind of scheme that makes us feel comfortable. At least we understand the rules of the game. But by no means I assert that this is neither the "right" path, nor the only possibility. I do like your dual idea a lot. But for my side, I still have not managed to understand it fully, how exactly to apply it, what qualifies as a dual hypothesis and what not, etc. It seems like a promising possibility, but I am still not sure what exactly it means, nor exactly the rules of the game. The old idea I know what it means (or I believe to know), and my question is: Is it the right approach? That is what my essay meant to discuss. Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but the procedure is clear: the old western machinery. New ideas look truly deep and full of potential, but (being western) I still feel I am an infant in them...

          more soon!

          inés.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #30

          Thanks. Just in case you want to try the programs you can get fast results with lower accuracy by removing a zero or two from kj variable (number of random throws). you can increase it to a comfortable level and still get a fairly good results. The electron mass is very fast already.

          Thanks again.

          Inese,

          I enjoyed your essay. I'm not sure if producing theorems could be automated but it should be possible to determine if a theorem is true by having a computer evaluate a string.

          I'm not completely certain that a shorter program implies a more fundamental theory. For example, Matrix Inversion and Gaussian Elimination do essentially the same thing but the Gaussian Elimination procedure is shorter but the Matrix Inversion is more general in my opinion. I can understand how the inverse of length correlates with generality though.

          I am curious, what species other than humans are known to construct theories:-) ET has not phoned home to the best of my knowledge:-)

          Can measurement and observation serve to fill in theoretical gaps produced by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?

          We have much to be humble about.

          Best Regards and Good Luck,

          Gary Simpson

          4 days later

          Dear Ines Samengo,

          Recalling what I learned at NATO Advanced Study Institute on Computational Hearing in Il Ciocco 1998, I wonder why you are not humble enough as to be cautiuos with an algorithmic approach. Jont Allen is not just still correct:

          'No model fits all data'.

          Instead, I arrived at an uncommon utterly fundamental insight concerning time.

          You mentioned "the messy zoology of theories that fill our libraries ...".

          You might decide yourself whether you will consider alternative views worth checking. I recommend essays by Kadin, Klingman, Traill, and me.

          Your command of English seems to be so good that you didn't use a spelling checker for "Lowachewsky, Riemman, and Russel".

          From your phrase "he or she" I conclude you are female. Wouldn't "one" be simpler?

          Best regards,

          Eckard Blumschein

          Dear Ines Samengo,

          Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, "spooky action at a distance" cannot occur and that, "God does not play dice". Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

          I also request you to read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

          Kamal Rajpal

          Dear Inés,

          It is good to see you again in this contest. I read your essay when it came out, but in the past few weeks I have been caught up in a several last-minute "emergencies" at work, and I am running late in commenting and rating essays!

          I think your essay does a very good job in describing what it means to construct a physical theory, and what we should expect from a fundamental theory. You start with a good review of the history of mathematical theory-building, and explain how the notion of truth evolved from something that was intuitively evident to something that merely followed from axioms, to something that could not even be always properly assessed (because of Gödel). You then make a very interesting comparison between the logic of mathematics, where your deduce theorems from axioms, and the logic of physics, where you try to find the most satisfying "axioms" (laws) that will reproduce the "theorems" (observations).

          Your discussion of what it means to be fundamental for a physical theory (minimal Kolmogorov complexity, maximal conceptuality, maximal generality) is clear and well argued. One minor point: you use the term "conceptual" to designate simplicity/compactness, but I wonder if it is the best term to use. What would be the opposite of "conceptual" in this context? Contrived? Disjointed? Opportunistic? Sometimes there is no perfect word to describe what we have in mind... or maybe in Spanish, the corresponding word to "conceptual" has different undertones? (This often happens when I attempt to translate key words from French to English...)

          (Possible typo: last complete paragraph of page 5, 3 lines from the end of the paragraph, "most fundamental of all"... you meant to write "most general of all", I think...)

          Things get really interesting starting with your "note of caution" on page 6, when you address the problem of comparing the physical "theorems" (predictions) to the actual observations, which are plagued with measurement uncertainties, and worse, with quantum indeterminacy. Observer-branching within the universal wavefunction only makes things worse, and I agree fully when you write:

          "The experiences we collect throughout our (single) life do not form a valid string, nor a target for a theory. They are only a tiny portion of a much larger string, that contains all what we could have experienced, and the resulting interferences."

          I also agree fully when you say that "in quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as one story: Different observers report different histories of the same situation." This is, of course, very similar to the Q-Bist-like view that the universe only makes sense one observer at a time. On that subject, I see that you put Amanda Gefter's "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn" in your bibliography. Did you enjoy the book?

          Overall, a very strong essay, on an essay topic that lent itself a bit less to controversy or disagreements than the previous few, because, after all, what is fundamental depends essentially on what we mean by "fundamental"!

          I am very happy that your previous essay won a prize last time, and I am glad that you are once again doing very well in the community ratings. There are so many fine essays this time, the final judging will be hard!

          All the best,

          Marc