Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger

Terry,

Did you see my 17.2.18 post above & 100sec video deriving non-integer spins from my essays mechanism resolving the EPR paradox? (I've just found the 'duplet state' confirmation in the Poincare sphere)

That all emerged from a 2010 SR model http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1330 finally able to resolve the ecliptic plane & stellar aberration issues and a tranche of others (expanded on in subsequent finalist essays).

i.e you'll be aware of George Kaplans USNO circ (p6) following IAU discussions.

(Of course all including editors dismiss such progress as impossible so it's still not in a leading journal!)

Hope you can look & comment

Peter

Dear Terry,

Thank you for your extended reply. I just wanted to acknowledge the following:

3. I am glad to see that connections between the variational principles and Kolmogorov Complexity have been discovered already. Applied specifically to the path integral, I believe that there is a more fundamental principle at work. In an amended form of Philip Gibbs' phrasing, it could be stated as "Nothing actual means everything potential", and in a formulation that I have called the default specification principle (and which I think is a bit more precise), it can be stated as "The absence of an explicit specification entails all possible default specification outputs". The idea is that when something is not in some way specified or pinned down, then of all the consequences that could result out performing that specification, all are available as "live possibilities". This has an essentially tautological character, except that it captures a distinction between things which are specified "explicitly" and things which are specified "by default", i.e. they are specified due to background constraints. For instance, if I wait until a throw a regular six-sided die, I know that, say, the number 7 or King of clubs are not among the possible outcomes of a throw. I don't know enough about information theory to be able to tell, but it seems to me that the realization that there is such a distinction, which is essentially ontological in character, still remains to be made. Possibly, if and when it is made, it could help by shifting some of the complexity of, say, a message to the background constraints.

7. I find the notion of an increase of meaning per message very interesting, in my mind it seems something analogous to a second-order effect, but possibly it could be conceptualized in terms of just the kind of background constraint I mentioned in my previous point. To give an (albeit rather hokey) analogy with the throw of a die: When I say that I hold a die in my hand which I am about to throw, but nothing further about the nature of the die, the possibilities for outcomes of a throw can be large. Without specifying the number of sides or what is on the sides, even the number 7 and the King of clubs are possibilities. Perhaps over time, you learn somehow that my die only contains numbers on its sides, in which case king of clubs is no longer a live possibility, but the number 7 still is. When you finally learn that I only ever throw 6-sided dies, you can then also eliminate the number 7, and thereby simplify the encoding of the possible outcomes. Conversely, by somehow incorporating these background constraints, you could increase the "meaning per message" by referring (as before) to a "die throw" but shifting the complexity to the background instead of having it contained in the message itself. (Incidentally, I will give a talk on the default specification principle at the APS March meeting and plan on filming it, if you are interested, let me know and I'll notify you when upload it).

6. I honestly did not realize that "paradigm change" has become a dirty phrase, but then I may not have been exposed to its abuse as much as you have. DECROCk is certainly a humorous take, but however it is called, I agree that it will involve discarding ideas which are no longer useful.

2. I think in Kuhn's model, the "slow accumulation of both stale facts and new facts" is actually still part of normal science. As I understand it, the crisis period refers to the one in which there is a competition between a number of different candidates for a paradigm without a clear favorite.

1. This was simply meant as a simple straightforward generalization of the example with the sequence in pi you gave: Instead of just pi, consider a set of irrational numbers, instead of a decimal expansion consider all expansions (binary, ternary etc) up to some number that is deemed useful, and instead of just some random number of digits in the expansion consider some standard. Then use this to create a giant look-up table the specification of the addresses within which is less complex than the specification of a given sequence itself. Like I said, this may be more naive or trivial than you might have thought.

All the best,

Armin

Dear Terry,

Maybe it's in the German genes that we prefer to think it out over trying it out...

Heinrich

P.S. From the hints you gave your family once came from Switzerland. Gruezi!

Dear Terry,

just one point I overlooked in my previous response. "I think is quite likely that the native Americans had already noticed both that their world was there, and that in terms of generations of ancestors, it was not even particularly new".

There still exist almost zero-contact Indian tribes deep in the Amazonian jungle having words for exactly one generation up, one generation down. So, there is no word for e.g. grandfather. Hence there is good reason to assume that North-American Indians, prior to colonization, had similar kinship recognition, i.e. I don't think they had any idea that their world "was not particularly new" (famous is Whorff's analysis of the absence of 'time' in Hopi). What NA Indians indeed had (or at least most) were creation myths, that is, principled explanations about the coming in place of their existence, typically beginning with ravens, eggs, deer and coyotes ...today its Big Bang and Inflation...

Heinrich

Terry, thanks for a very clear and interesting essay.

It seems there are two types of information covered in your essay. There is the information required to describe a theory such as the standard model, and there is the information in the state space of the theory. Mostly you are talking about the former, but for example, when you talk about redundancy in symmetry that is about the latter.

Do you make any distinction between the roles played by these two types of information?

Terry,

I've been mulling this over. If I accept the Kolmogorov (Kolmogorov-Chaitin) complexity as the ultimate foundation standard, let me understand:

You would have me believe that the world is fundamentally made of information bits that are algorithmically compressible. Okay, I'll entertain that notion.

Except that you used the example of Einstein, E=mc^2, to serve as a minimum Kolmogorov complexity, arguing that mathematical conciseness is the standard.

The equation, however, is not irreducible. The meaning of the equation is in the expression E = m. The second degree addition tells us that the relations in the equation are dynamic, that energy and mass may take infinite values. The binding energy then was discovered through experiment, setting a practical limit.

So I find myself moving ever closer to Brian Josephson's premise that meaning itself is fundamental. And meaning seems to be that which contains the requisite first degree information to "Be fruitful and multiply" as the Bible has it. So I suspect that meaning precedes construction. Or compression.

Enjoyed the essay.

Best,

Tom

Dear Terry

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

Terry

Thanks for looking. You clearly have your own well established ideas, something we're all guilty of to some degree. I studied the ID230 and essentially it seems to be based on random number generation and not any 'action at a distance' so found it's descriptions a little misleading and struggle to see it's direct relevance. Can you explain.

I was also surprised you didn't see from the video how adding different rates of z axis rotation to a 180o y axis rotation transformed it to either spin 1/2 or spin 2, or indeed other non-integer rates. (The North pole returned in either 90o or 360o y axis rotations). It's beauty is in it's simplicity.

Did you a) not see it do so? or b) not think it replicates the data?

I was also disappointed you couldn't follow the mechanistic sequence reproducing Dirac's formulation. It is indeed multi faceted so it's clear (we) have to do a better job breaking it down into brain-manageable steps.

Re Dr Bertelman's socks; Did you read my (top scored) 2015 essay; The Red/Green Sock Trick. which clarifies how my red lined green socks (& vice versa) avoid Bells theorem as he anticipated, the solution; "..will be found by going round the back". Most understood in 2015 so I hope at least you may also!

That essay also shows how the QM solution emerged from an SR solution free of paradox (as 3 prev finalist essays) so unified with the fundamental probability distribution of my 'Law of the reducing Middle' (which the ID230 uses), consistent with Prof Phillips excellent essay here.

But all have their own embedded ideas, whether mainstream or not. I know it can be hard to suspend them to explore others as I try to do so systemically but still often struggle. That's human nature, and we all have limited time. If yours is to short, thank you anyway for the time you spent.

Very best

Peter

PS. Are you aware of the IAU/ USNO's big 'ecliptic plane/stellar aberration problem? (astral navigation etc.) I have the clear solution but entrenched thinking won't allow it to emerge. What on Earth can I do?

Terry,

I forgot; - Of course I'm NOT suggesting; "there is no such thing as entanglement." at all. I show an 'entangled' relationship of antiparallel polar axes reproduces QM predictions, and only then say "there is no such thing as 'spooky action at a distance' required!"

p

Terry,

Like your practice of numbering responses by paragraphs. and a useful analytic. Had not thought of approaching my reading in that manner. Like that free acrobat permits highlighting and commenting.

Many interesting thoughts in your responses. Skipping beyond a few of them to

(4) Euler's identity - yes, apparent deepness of connection between math and matter befuddles. re inversion, i did try to work with conductance early in exploration of impedance quantization. Shoulda been trivial. Seemed more sensible to work in terms of what goes easy rather than what resists. Simple thing in mathcad (left a link for you to pdf of an early mathcad file in our thread on my essay) to work either way. Was very puzzling. Gave it a lot of attention, as somehow it seemed a philosophical item of importance, to opt for conductance rather than resistance. Could not make any sense of it, still don't understand why. Couldn't get the numbers to work. One has to calculate to figure anything out. Couldn't calculate. Had to give up, switch back to impedances. Can't believe there is anything fundamental in the modeling that would cause this. Wish i had a student to chase it.

(5) renormalization - you are calling conductance 'the primary fraction'? Like that, but of itself it is not enough to result in finiteness if i understand correctly. Impedance has both capacitive and inductive components with pi/2 phase shift between them in 'free space', a consequence of how wave function of interest excites the eight-component 3D Pauli vacuum wavefunction. Capacitive impedance is zero at the singularity, inductive is infinite. Going from ohms to mhos doesn't get rid of the singularity, just shifts its phase. However either extreme results in an infinite mismatch.

(5a) Regarding applications of quantum impedance matching in amo/condensed matter, agree there are possibilites as yet unimagined. Been humping on that for years. Only way to understand the inertia of mainstream is to experience it. Would seem obvious. The computer holding me a willing captive at this very moment is chock full of impedance matches. How could a quantum computer be any different? So far in our investigation of impedance quantization it seems the concept is firmly grounded in reality. Computers require impedance matching. Quantum computers require quantum impedance matching. Have a Buddhist friend that likes the phrase 'not no mind'. Me, i go with compassion for ignorance, otherwise would hate my not no self and go lusting for the not no gold mines' kitty kats. What a funny world we live in. Mortgages and back taxes.

(6) dude! We got got gravity. That was our black hole info paradox paper/poster for the 2013 Rochester Conference on Quantum optics, information, and measurement. Vetted by Optical Society of American, world guardian of quantum information theory/experiment. Poster is perhaps quickest click. http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0102v1.pdf

(7a) excellent. You know math better, perhaps i have found a teacher please. The uniqueness of 3D space is an area pretty new to me, and i've never seriously looked at quaternions. When trying to model particle physics one picks and chooses what to learn very carefully, as there is infinity of beauty and complexity in every direction. For the purposes of tying together loose ends it seldom suffices to simply chase down the ends and knot them, unless one agrees to be satisfied with the tangle that connect them. Lacking that the universal PhD path dives in and start untangling. The village idiot just tracks down the ends and ties the knot. and poof fairy tale tangle vanishes and he steps in a cow pie. So it goes. Michaele and i are more modelers than typical theorists, and def not math types. Calculators.

(7b) thanks for link to Traill, Peter Jackson also recommended him and I took a look but was not able to wrap the mind around it, will try again.

re intuition, i think much of it has to do with what one experiences in life, what the Buddhist might call dependent arising. For me it was working with my brother, designing/building/operating vibratory piledrivers, synchronized spinning eccentric weights. Standing next to them, feeling the energy transfer,... Made one want to laugh, to dance and sing. That and dad was an electronics guy, we build the electronic analog and ran it on the bench. Mechanical and electrical impedances. Quantization comes easy once one gets that.

took a look at the Rochester poster. Had forgotten superheavies (top/higgs/Z/W) line is in the wrong place by a power of alpha in figure 4. Better reference for that figure is the big bang/bounce paper http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0208

Terry,

Not sure what you mean:

a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak,

My comments above did not apply to you, basically the contest in general.

Jim