The Perception of Order by Noson S. Yanofsky

Dear Noson S. Yanofsky,

I enjoyed your essay and your emphasis on "how the laws of nature are found", essentially through our ability to perceive 'patterns' or 'symmetrical order'.

Your discussion of various instances was appropriate, and your discussion of "the nature of the laws of nature" thought-provoking. But for me the most powerful part of your essay was the use of a random matrix and filters to extract or expose order so easily. I'm very impressed by this example. The patterns are indeed worth thousands of words.

I hope you will read my current essay and comment on it.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Noson,

I'm very happy to see your contribution to this contest. You highlight a number of important issues that are often glossed over, regarding the question of how we can come up with theories of physics in the first place---as you say, there must be certain kinds of order for this to happen. In a sense, this makes our world very special---it seems like there are many worlds that one could imagine where no such order is present; 'high entropy'-worlds in a meta-sense.

I like the distinction you draw between symmetrical and ensemble order. There seems to be the possibility for an iterative process of increased understanding: a given ensemble might be one PPP in a set of PPPs related by a symmetry (sort of 'zooming out' the point of view), while that set itself might be a new ensemble.

Perhaps it's by such an iterated process that higher levels of order can be extracted from the underlying chaos: there is, first, an ensemble of 'regular' strings, we can group into certain classes---repetitions, sequences, digits of pi, and so on. The ensemble of such classes may then have additional regularities, which again can be grouped... And so on.

There are intriguing examples of how laws can emerge from random processes, too---all that's needed is that the progression towards higher entropy can be described by an effective regularity. Johannes Koelmann gives and interesting example of this type with his mikado universe, which illustrates how an increase in entropy may lead to a law of attraction between two 'voids' in a universe of 'strands' that may be on or off.

Thanks for an intriguing essay. I hope you'll find some time to have a look at mine---I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts!

Dear Dr Noson S. Yanofsky,

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

Joe Fisher, Realist

I suggest that 'Order' (as arrangement), seen or unseen, is always present as an inevitable fact of nature. Everything is in order at all times, albeit continuously changeable. It is 'Patterns' rather than 'Order' that are subjective perceptions (or what you call illusions) that differ and to which we each attach different degrees of significance.

Concerning the term 'Fundamental', the concept may be used in reference to the essential constituent of a specific phenomenon; or to infer a universal foundation underlying everything. It is important to realize that this distinction is not obvious in reading the FQXi essay contest subject and, in its absence, each contributor is free to elect which (fundamental) path to take.

While symmetry is familiar to all of us, to designate it as a 'law of nature' is a bit of a stretch. Look around, has anybody ever seen a symmetrical tree? Perhaps 'approximate equilibrium' is a more fitting descriptor of this perception (or order if you prefer).

Further, we need to examine the question of there being 'laws' of nature. Insofar as laws are generally regarded as being finite, any given circumstance either complying or not; a better, more moderate way to describe the governing influences bearing upon nature would suggest that nature is directed by 'principles' that accommodate flexibility.

Dear Noson,

thank for sharing your essay, which I found very interesting. The idea of the necessity of order within chaos due a large amount of facts is very stimulating.

You write that,

> The order that we see is only an illusion. However, this ability to have such an illusion is real and very fundamental.

and

> In conclusion, it is not strange to find some patterns in our random matrix. Similarly, it is not strange that we find order in the world around us.

Following your thoughts I was wondering if we should consider more fundamental chaos, instead of one of the many orders who emerge from it. Moreover, things would change drastically if that "chaos" would be infinite, instead of "very huge"...

Good luck with the contest, your essay is worthy for sure!

Francesco

Noson,

"Our perception of order is the only true fundamental" you conclude. One perceives order in symmetry and the other in ensemble, but are only subjective. My reasoning is similar in that I believe the fundamental does not exist without the consciousness of the sentient being and the subject or concept being investigated. The fundamental being absolutely necessary for existence, it does not exist without perception.

I would assume you might say that that illusion does not exist without the observer since the fundamental is only perception. I would like to hear you views on mine as well.

Jim Hoover

Respected Prof Noson S. Yanofsky

You wrote wonderfully...." over the millennia, various objects, laws, and concepts have been considered fundamental........but perception of order remained fundamental as Scientists have the ability to observe the seemingly chaotic universe around them and perceive order. We describe two methods that are used to determine such order............." very nice.....

And....

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 Prof. Yanofsky,

It was a pleasure to read your essay. I totally agree with you that symmetries will be our guiding principle in finding deeper physical laws. On the one hand the unification of interactions, and on the other hand, finding a theory of quantum gravity, will reveal newer symmetries. I also feel geometry will play a central role - we see a greater and greater progress towards generalized geometries, non-commutative geometry being one example.

Do you think there are ultimate building blocks of matter? I am also curious whether for you mathematics is Platonic, or is it a mental model on which everyone is in agreement?

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Dear Noson,

thank you very much for your answer! Yes, I agree. But if the universe is chaotic, even if we would still find structure in it, that chaos would be more fundamental, or not?

All the best!

Francesco

Dear Prof. Yanofsky,

I found your essay very enjoyable and well argued. I find very nice your idea of moving away the focus from the "usual suspects", namely from a reduction of more and more "fundamental", in fact smaller, components. Your proposition of looking for the order, seems most interesting to me. I give your essay the higest rating.

I would be most thankful if find the time to have a look at my essay as well and give me your opinion.

All the best,

Flavio

Dear Noson,

the prospect of getting laws out of some process of emergence seems a motivating factor in several of the essays in this contest. It's an attractive idea: after all, everything else can only react with a shrug when asked 'but why this?'. And how could laws be fundamental if they need further justification?

Markus Müller has an interesting take on this, with a subjectivist (almost phenomenologist) bent, if you haven't read his essay.

Also, if you find the time, I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on my own contribution!

Cheers,

Jochen

Professor Yanofsky,

[My pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt] First my positive reactions:

-- Very nicely written! It is entertaining and easy to read, with a really nice and accurate mathematical and physics history intro.

-- Definitely novel! The path you took was definitely not any path I was expecting, which is exactly why I liked it and feel you are exploring the kind of new approach for which FQXi is looking.

-- Your examples also caught me off guard, which again is cool! While I was aware at least in concept that larger arrays of random numbers create larger opportunities for finding unexpected order.* In the white noise you can find any song you wish, but only if you know the song ahead of time and build your pattern of selection from chaos upon it. Order from chaos, but only if we apply the order.

* In retrospect, the example in my own essay of how larger expansions of pi provide increased opportunities to find matches to larger arbitrary strings of digits would seem to be an example of this principle.

----------

Negatives (this is the "ouch" part, sorry, I hate it too, but I think it's best to be clear here also, instead of hand-wavy and vague):

-- When I look at fundamental physics, it is very hard for me to understand how this idea of pattern selection applies temporally. Are you perhaps suggesting some kind of Wheeler-like end-of-the-universe observing the beginning, as I think you are referring to in your reference [4]?

So that is maybe not so much a negative on your concept of perceived order as fundamental -- anthropic probabilities alone say we are certainly missing something extreme and profound, given the insanely unlikely origins of our particular universe -- as a lack of clarity in your essay as to how your idea maps to the universe as we see it.

For example, as I read it I was wondering if you intended some sort of solipsistic interpretation in which you (and others? did I just try to invent multiple solipsism? heh!) are some sort of independent entities looking upon chaos? Or something Wheeler-like, where the consensus originates from the conclusion of the universe? So, it just felt incomplete and left me a bit baffled as to where exactly you were placing the "ordering function" in all of this chaos, and what the origins of these ordering functions (us) is. Also, how do we get the consensus that most would agree exists, especially scientists who make independent measure and come up with similar conclusions?

I am not of the Wheeler-ish school on this point, I should note. I think the universe existed just fine and dandy before we humans ever came around to impose our own ordered perceptions upon it. As you know from my essay, I also think that rather than imposing order, we mine or extract it from the preexisting universe. But that is irrelevant to your excellent argument. I have been wrong many times (ask my wife), and certainly don't assume myself to be correct on such deep topics just because it make since within my necessarily very limited scope of knowledge.

And of course, there is also that anthropic monkey wrench in all of this, which seems to imply rather powerfully that the incredible order we now perceive was somehow inserted into the very origins of our universe. My own essay does nothing more than suggest how to get better at finding and extracting that order. I don't even attempt to explain where that order might have come from, as you do!

-- While I liked your random number matrix examples, I do wish you had used a smaller font so that you could have spent at least about two pages elaborating on where your order-imposers reside, and how they manage (or if they manage?) to see the same beautiful songs when peering into the white noise of the universe.

-- Also, this is perhaps more a question, but it was also a concern that I recall having as I read your essay:

In computation you need things like memory to create filters. If your observers are independent of the universe, what is the source of their own computational structures by which they are capable of perceiving order in chaos? How does your strategy avoid simply turning the creation (selection, perception) of order to an earlier step, that being the "creation" of the observers themselves?

--------------------

And again: Nice essay!

Cheers,

Terry Bollinger (Topic 3099, "Fundamental as Fewer Bits")

Noson,

As time grows short, I recheck those that I have commented on to see if I've rated them. I find that I have not rated yours and am correcting that now.

Hope you can get a chance to look at mine.

Jim Hoover