An algorithmic approach to fundamental physics by Ines Samengo

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

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

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

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

Dear Inés,

you present a compelling picture that finds me nodding in agreement more often than not. In particular, I share a similar appreciation of the process of explaining the world as being essentially computational. You carefully and very sharply tease apart the implications of this sort of view.

I also broadly agree with the similarity of Gödelian incompleteness and quantum mechanical indeterminacy (although one needs to be careful here: Wheeler got himself thrown out of Gödel's office for suggesting a connection). Your view of the analogy between mathematical and physical theory-building, I think, makes this possibility look very natural.

My own take is slightly different: I view neither Gödel's results nor the apparent limitations of quantum mechanics as inherent in mathematics or physical reality respectively, but rather, as (necessary) limitations of human researchers. It's not that mathematics is incomplete; it's simply that with the tools we can use---i.e. what's usually summarized as 'effective methods', finitely axiomatized systems, finite deductions, and so on---, it is impossible to cover mathematics within a single system. The reason for this is, essentially, that all of our models are computational, as I believe you would agree with.

The limitation on physical explanation may then be of a similar origin: it is the nature of the tools we use to describe the world---effective and computational---that makes us describe it as a sort of collection of overlapping, yet distinct, systems. (I should note here that I don't believe this to be a temporary restriction to be overcome eventually; rather, I think this limit is inherent to the notion of description itself. Trying to describe the world 'as a whole' would essentially amount to saying nothing---the program of vanishing length that outputs every conceivable string.)

I like to use a different analogy here, between formal systems in mathematics and complete sets of compatible observables within quantum mechanics: our picture of a physical system is a 'patchwork' of complementary stories in that sense, much as our picture of mathematics is a patchwork of axiom systems.

Again, thank you for a thoroughly interesting and well-reasoned essay!

Cheers,

Jochen

Dear Ines,

I also am interested to see a mathematically well-founded basis for theoretical physics!

"For more than a century mathematicians have been endorsing formal systems with no physical counterpart, and here I support a search for a formal system whose instantiation is the world we live in. This search commends the old notion of truth, in which statements are deemed true if they describe entities existing in the real world."

But I'm certain that one must include all the quark and electron quantum numbers, spin, mass and energy be requirements of a new fndamnetal description.

" I could potentially consider endorsing such a notion of truth to describe processes governed by classical physics, since for them, there is such thing as one reality. That one history can be considered the true one, and all other alternative evolutions, not actually happening, are false. This notion of truth, however, cannot be arrogated to all quantum phenomena, because in the quantum realm there is no single reality. "

Because one can consider quantum objects such as an electron, etc, to be spinning and interacting at a rate much faster than we are ever able to sample it. In that way quantum phenomena appear random when they have a classical spin.

Best,

Dr Wayne Lundberg

Dear Ines

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

Marc - The quotation you include above also struck me, when I read this essay. Inés expanded on this in her reply to my comment above... she says, "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."

I agree, QM shows us that there's a deeper level below what we experience, where the landscape widens amazingly, as a superposition of all possibilities. This is remarkable...but then, it's also remarkable that when circumstances allow, certain possibilities are chosen to become facts, that can permanently redefine what's possible for this particular version of the world. And even if facts are always observer-relative, as in QBism or Amanda's book, there's such a broad range in which we can somehow find agreement on what's objectively real.

The lesson I get from this is that instead of taking the well-defined objective reality of things as the fundamental given, we need to understand where it comes from and how it arises. If "the experiences we collect throughout our (single) life do not form a valid string, nor a target for a theory," they can nonetheless give us a stable, reliable basis for discovering what's going on in the world, even down to the quantum level.

This highlights for me that "fundamental" can be conceived from two directions - on the one hand as what's deeper, more universal, less arbitrary - looking for the more general / conceptual theory. But also, what's fundamental is what can function as a basis for things, supporting higher levels of existence. So much progress has been made from the first point of view... but it's a real challenge trying to think about physics as a system for generating reality.

Conrad