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

Marc,

Thank you for such generous, detailed, and insightful comments! That is the best critique section I've seen yet for my essay, and your comments definitely made me consider how to do a number of items better.

I put the diagram together with a focus on capturing the idea of "excursions" away from the main message, and freely confess that some of my choices for labels were more humorous winks and nods at my own essay than realistic examples from actual data compression. It's an old technique to see if folks are paying close attention, and in this case, you are the only one who said they noticed.

Labeling the main path that way, though... yes, that is pretty much an error, and I definitely would do it differently in retrospect. Since I'm pretty sure I'll be doing new versions of that same figure in the future, that insight of yours will be helpful. Thanks!

So again: Thanks, that is really good feedback!

On your additional comments, Euler's identity is in many ways is easy to understand, and certainly it is exceptionally elegant. The point about a physics interpretation is a bit more subtle, though. Sometimes things that seem very familiar can have additional implications that our familiarity actually makes harder to see. For that challenge, it really is a shot in the dark in the sense that I'm not assuming any specific link to physics, just that its very brevity may imply a more specific physical implication that so far has been overlooked.

By binary I am showing my computer science roots: We reflectively translate everything numeric into zeros and ones. Other options did not work out that all well in the early years of computers, and binary is a pretty decent choice for a "universal" format for representing numbers.

I'll now go take a look at your essay. You have me curious!

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

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

Tom,

Thank you for your well-stated questions about information versus meaning.

Information (bits) and meaning are not the same thing at all, nor does the idea of binary compression create meaning. All compression does is eliminate bits that are not part of the primary meaning of the message.

To get at the meaning, you have to have some much broader context by which to interpret those bits. Since you mentioned the Bible, an example would be a Unicode version of the Bible in, say, German. Until you understand both Unicode and the German language, that bit string remains just that: a string of bits. The meaning only comes from that broader context.

Or for another analogy, compression is more like panning for gold. It helps pull out the gold, sure, but the value of that gold depends entirely on the person doing the panning.

For more on the relationship between data and meaning, please see this posting I did about how the meaning of a given string of bits can vary over time.

Thanks again for some well-stated questions!

Cheers,

Terry Bollinger

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

Terry,

Perhaps because I think like a complex systems scientist, I agree with your gold mining metaphor -- applied to information. Information without waste and redundancy is efficient and useful. On the other hand, waste and redundancy are assets to creativity. The meaning that one assigns to information is a subjective judgement; it does not necessarily contain the requisite information to "be fruitful and multiply."

A priori meaning is that which precedes information, and continues without the user's knowledge. For example, Leslie Lamport said, "A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't even know existed can render your own computer unusable." Unusable, not meaningless. For in the context of the system, rejected information is useful somewhere else in the system.

Thanks for bringing the dialogue to a higher level. It is most welcome.

Best,

Tom

Hi Terry,

I saw the amazing brainstorm in your 2/17 "quick addendum" comment on Karen Crowther's essay, but thought it was more appropriate to respond here. (Unfortunately since your comment is hidden in that thread, I can't link to it directly.)

The basic idea is that perturbative theory is more fundamental than non-perturbative theory, even where the latter is actually available -- which isn't the case, so far, with the Standard Model. I'd never thought of it like that, but it does make sense to me. It has always seemed to me significant that a beautifully simple formula like Newton's gravitation law has to be computed perturbatively as soon as you have more than two interacting bodies. I think what this points to is just that the actual physics of our world is being done in the vast numbers of one-on-one relationships between things (and parts of things)... while the seemingly simple "formal solutions" represent the summary result of this, not its underlying cause.

What's really daring is your insistence that not only physics but sacrosanct Math itself - at least to the extent it's computable - also works this way. I was indeed shocked, not so much by the anti-Platonic idea as by the intellectual energy behind it. But as I've come across your responses to many another essay in this contest, I've come to realize you're one of those who can "think five impossible things before breakfast." I'm in awe.

Now for another of your dicta, which I also agree with: not only entropy but also meaning increases with time. Referring here to your reply to Noson Yanofsky above, and to your comment on Josephson's essay: "Meaning itself appears to be inherent and pre-programmed into the very fabric of our cosmos, both at the level of the Standard Model and deeper. I do not think we are remotely close to understanding how that works, or even how to frame the question properly."

Framing this question is a central concern of mine. My my last FQXi essay proposed a recursive definition of meaning, expanding on Bateson's "difference that makes a difference." As argued also in my current essay, for any kind of information to be meaningfully definable, there has to be an appropriate context of other minds of information, that have meaning in other contexts. In relation to your quantifying the "impact on reality per bit," the point is that "impact" depends on the "pre-programming" of some part of reality to receive this particular kind of information and translate it into some other kind, that has an impact somewhere else. In the earlier essay I tried to outline the three great recursive technologies that accomplish this in the physical, biological and human worlds, each working by a form of natural selection. In a still earlier essay I pointed out the "semantic" dimension in the mathematical language of physics - another way of getting at the issue of how different types of physical information help define each other.

My sense is that Josephson's "semiotics" doesn't get to this key issue. If we think of "meaning" in terms of signifying, we have a relation between sign and signified where the context goes unnoticed. This is also the problem with much discussion of measurement in quantum theory, where the many-faceted complexity of any actual measurement arrangement gets abstracted into a relation between object and observer.

It's quite understandable that even though measurement-contexts clearly play a key role in quantum physics, it only seems possible to describe them theoretically in a highly abstract form. But I think this is why I'm so impressed your notion that "perturbative" theory has to be fundamental - it shows a willingness to get involved in the many-leveled nuanced "lumpiness" of the world. So more power to you! (But do stop for breakfast once in a while.)

Conrad

All,

I just did an evaluation of Karl Coryat's excellent essay The Four Pillars of Fundamentality. It is both funny and profound, and I recommend it highy!

For anyone interested, I once again inadvertently got "into the zone" while contemplating Karl's Pillar #3 (Relations), resulting in another one of my on-the-fly mini-papers. This one addresses two topics: (a) the deep physics level fundamentality of "relations", which is the topic of Karl's Pillar #4, and (b) a years-old space-as-entanglement idea from my personal physics notes.

I had not intended to present the space-as-entanglement idea here, but it just seemed too relevant. It is equivalent to a hugely simplified, non-holographic approach to constructing 3-space out of a direct 3D (not 4D) web of group-level entanglements. The entangled "unit of space" is an overlooked direction-only conjugate component of particle spin. Since these were just personal musings, I was genuinely surprised to find out that a lively community for exploring the idea that space is a form of 4D holographic entanglement has existed for years. My version is much simpler (3D), much more direct (just a web), and I think kind of fun to read as a mind-stretching exercise if nothing else!

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

All,

Another very well written essay that I must recommend is Marc Séguin's Fundamentality Here, Fundamentality There, Fundamentality Everywhere.

It was one of my most enjoyable reads. It is lucid, learned, well-stated, well-ordered, addresses the topic in an interesting and engaging way, and has a sly self-deprecating sense of humor that had me chuckling multiple times. It is also spot-on for the question that FQXi asked this year.

On looking back at my assessment of Marc's essay, it looks like I got a bit carried away again. This time the topic was the nature of qualia. That is the word for the internal sensations and emotions that you can bring up in your mind without external sensory inputs. Try it: Close your eyes and imaging red and green lights, alternating. Those are qualia.

Notice that even though your optical system consistently maps the external light frequencies that we call red and green into the corresponding qualia in your head, the very fact that you can bring up the qualia without any external stimulation shows that all that is going on here is mapping: the light frequencies get mapped into those "somethings" in your head that you can also bring up from memory. For all you or I know, what red light brings up in my head might be what you would have called green. That sort of thing happens all the time for folks with synesthesia (which makes me jealous!).

So if you happen to have any interest in qualia, you can see what I wrote in my comments on Marc's essay.

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

    Dear Terry,

    Thank you for the kind words about my essay! To keep the ball rolling, may I recommend another excellent essay,

    "What if even the Theory of Everything isn't fundamental" by Paul Bastiaansen

    fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3063

    I too got carried away with my comments on his thread... I used, of course, your very helpful and honest "what I liked/what I liked less" approach, and even referred to your essay contestant pledge!

    Cheers,

    Marc

    Terry,

    I like your definition (quote?) of QM. The thing about history is that nobody can see it as history at the time.

    There's history being written in my essay you've so far missed due to normal embedded assumptions. To make it more visible I've posted the below check list which the ontology builds on; Hope you can find the l time to look with a fresh mind.

    AS MOST STRUGGLE WITH THE CLASSICAL SEQUENCE (TO MUCH TO HOLD IN MIND ALL AT ONCE) A QUICK OUTLINE INTRO IS HERE;

    1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM; with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

    2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

    3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

    4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

    5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

    6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

    7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

    8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

    The numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 As the matching computer code & plot in Declan Traill's short essay. All is Bell compliant as he didn't falsify the trick with reversible green/red socks (the TWO pairs of states).

    After deriving it in last years figs I only discovered the Poincare sphere already existed thanks to Ulla M during this contest. I hope that helps introduce the ontology.

    Very best. Peter

    Conrad,

    Out of sheer luck I managed to find this posting just now! Speaking of how difficult it is to find reply postings and such, would be sooooo nice if FQXi did things like:

    -- When people sign up to get alerts for new or reply postings to an essay, send them emails with real, exact links to the new posts or replies, as opposed to mindlessly repeating only the generic link to the top-level essay;

    -- Make linking to sub-posts trivial and intuitive;

    -- Fix the "invisible sub-post" problem;

    -- Add more meaningful titles to links, instead of labeling absolutely everything as "FQXi Community";

    -- Stop taking people to some new or wrong location after they do something like logout to log back in again (which should keep you on the same login in page, not send you off to the home FQXi home page!);

    -- And worst of all, stop logging people out invisibly and for no reason!

    Other than that, I'm good... :)

    Conrad, it will be my great pleasure to respond in more detail to you today. I'll also try to fix some of the invisibility issues. I am for example considering consolidating those two very radical on-the-fly postings into one top-level mini-essay of some sort.

    More later!

    Cheers,

    Terry

    The Crowther Criteria for Fundamental Theories of Physics

    The source for this consolidated and lightly edited list is the 2017 FQXi Essay When do we stop digging? Conditions on a fundamental theory of physics, by Dr Karen Crowley at the University of Geneva. You can download her essay and read the discussion about it here:

    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/3034/__details/Crowther_Crowther_-_when_do.pdf

    To qualify under the Crowther Criteria, a fundamental theory of physics must be:

    CC#1. Unified: It must address all of reality using a single set of self-consistent premises.

    CC#2. Unique: It should be the only possible theory once its premises have been stated formally.

    CC#3. UV complete: There should not exist any phenomena are outside of its formal scope.

    CC#4. Non-perturbative: Its formalisms should be exactly solvable rather than probabilistic.

    CC#5. Internally self-consistent: It should be well-defined formally, and should not generate singularities.

    CC#6. Scale smooth: Its explanation of reality should be continuous across all scales (levels) of space and time, with no gaps, overlaps, or other discontinuities.

    CC#7. Fully generative: It requires no pre-existing fixed or "given" structures, such as space itself, that have complex and non-trivial properties.

    CC#8. Natural: It should require no arbitrary, inexplicable "fine-tuning" of numeric parameters.

    CC#9. Not weird: The underlying premises should be simple, easily comprehensible, and subject to Occam's razor.

    Don,

    My apologies, I completely forgot this one.

    I have now created a response folder for your essay and my responses. (Yes, I create an entire folder for each essayist with whom I interact.)

    Most likely I got distracted (left my laptop) right after responding to you. With so many essays and so many posts (and other distractions), I tend to forget my promises if I do not immediately created the corresponding folder.

    Please note in advance that due to my own pledge (see link at bottom) I can be a pretty tough reviewer. So, when folks request reviews I reserve the right just to make comments and not to score the essay in cases where I know I would give a low score. I don't mind giving blunt feedback-- sometimes we all need that -- but I just don't feel good giving low scores in response to a polite request for a review.

    It's best to mention all of this before I look at your essay, since I have no idea in advance what I'll be seeing or how I may react.

    Cheers,

    Terry

    Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

    Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

    Terry,

    If #7 were true, physics would have no foundational theories. Complex, non-trivial properties are often the result of dynamics with specified boundary conditions.

    Dear Terry,

    An original and daring idea, to define a numerical measure to answer the question 'what is fundamental'. It is really interesting to literally view scientific theories as a concise way to represent measurement data.

    I have a few comments. Your example of decimals of pi nicely illustrates that an unambiguous measure of Kolmogorov complexity is not possible. The example doesn't suffice, however, because the string of decimals is too short. I'm quite sure that in the space of 20 decimals, you cannot write a program that enumerates the decimals of pi. So probably the shortest way to represent your example string is the string itself (or a zipped variant). But of course, if you would take a string of decimals of pi that is much longer, the example does work.

    A more serious objection on your view on physics as information theory is that I would want to see arguments why it makes sense to view a physical theory as a concise way of reproducing data. This view misses the semantical part, the meaning of the theory. In practice, the question on how to check measurement data against the predictions of a theory, is not a straightforward one. A lot of theory interpretation is needed to calculate what outcome the theory predicts for a certain measurement. This aspect is absent from your view.

    Let me put it in a different way: if I understand you right, I can rephrase your claim that the most fundamental physical theory is somewhat like the best compression algorithm. Both are the shortest possible way to represent a set of data. But there is an important difference, because any scientific theory is a finite description of an infinite set of data, whereas the size of a compressed set of data still scales with the size of the original data. This indicates that there is an important difference between the two.

    In the end, I tend to think that how fundamental a theory is, is not a concept that can be given a numerical measure. But I admit that the idea is really interesting.

    Let me read up on the Spekkens principle, because I don't think I understand it. And I really like the three challenges you conclude with. I must confess, as a physicist, that I never appreciated the mysteries around spin and the difference between fermions and bosons. My bad, because indeed this must be profound.

    All the best,

    Paul Bastiaansen

    All,

    I'm introducing a new FQXi process idea here, which is this: I want to create a new format for capturing important essay contest conversations in a more explicit, more accessible form that makes them easier to cite and reference.

    Specifically, I will be posting for reference a number of supplemental "mini-essays" that capture, clean up, and document some of the particularly interesting ideas that have emerged from what have been for me very stimulating interactions with other essays and their authors. My goal is to make these synergistic outcomes more explicit and easier to reference in the future. Putting aside the competitive aspects of the FQXi Essay contests, I would judge that the greatest value of these contests emerges instead from the interactions between essay authors. Our essays are far more valuable as an interactive whole than they are if viewed only in isolation.

    The Crowley Criteria posting is my first example of such a mini-essay, though it is more an example of a reference summary than a mini-essay. For any of the mini-essays I post, please free to add your thoughts with (preferably) a reply-to at that posting. Note however that in the case of the Crowley Criteria I'm just trying to capture her ideas in a simple format. So if you want to debate any of the points in her list you should go to her essay thread rather than mine.

    I'm posting the Crowley Criteria in part because I need them as a reference for a rather unusual mini-essay that I will be posting soon. To be frank, that mini-essay ends up directly contradicting her CC#4. I didn't expect to wind up there, but such an unexpected journey is worth documenting!

    Each time I post a mini-essay I will try quickly (I was slow this time) to post a short addendum that provides links to the mini-essay. Below is my link addendum for the Crowley Criteria post.

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

    To link to the mini-essay titled:

    [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3099#post_145551]The Crowther Criteria for Fundamental Theories of Physics[/link]

    ... Please copy and paste either the named link above or the direct URL below:

    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3099#post_145551

      Terry, some quick short notes as I work my way to your essay:

      1. FQXi Essay Contestant Pledge = Suggested FQXi Voting Pledge

      Your Pledge is so refreshing that I've hot-linked it above. LHS wording of the title is yours; to me, it reads "official" and is thus too hopeful (for now). RHS is my suggested edit as we work with FQXi to improve things!

      2. Under current circumstances, my own position is clear:

      (i) As an independent researcher, I'm here to discuss, learn, teach, debate, respond to every question, critique others, etc. Result = Fail; eg, next-to-no questions, few responses.

      (ii) I'm not here for the votes: Result = Just-as-well; eg, given a 0 without explanation: how can I learn, respond, correct, defend, revise, acknowledge, etc?

      3. While we await (with many others) for FQXi improvements, why don't we develop an OPEN voting system? Add to your Pledge a (say, for argument's sake) 5-category [each numbered; #1-5] scoring sheet [maximum vote per category = 2??] with space for explanations, plus identifier (say, for you, hot-linked Terry Bollinger [or with hot-linked email-addresses also allowed] so that we ALWAYS get an alert -- with easy-return access. [You get the idea.]

      Recipient can respond to Terry Bollinger#2, for all to see: thus promoting open learning, debate, progress, support for one view or the other, or a middle view, etc. Given the teaching/learning, who then here, as a serious researcher, would focus on "fake-scores"?

      The advantage of this OPEN proposal is that you, with your background, could lead us to something truly useful, actionable, within the current rules, a worthwhile experiment, ready for the next "contest" (surely the wrong word here) -- which FQXi can monitor before refining (if need be), and accepting as the new gold-standard in OPEN teaching/learning/essay-exchange; etc: ready for the next 1 "contest"!

      4. To your (for me) excellent essay:

      (i) I counted 8 important fundamental symbols in Challenge #1.

      (ii) Re Challenge #2: in my [hurried] essay, see hot-linked Reference [12], p.639! It's part of my theory.

      (iii) NB: Your editorial red-pen will be very welcome there at any time; hopefully after you've read [in the first thread], the Background to my theory (which dates from 1989).

      (iv) Maybe, with hard work and insight, you might just become the person who finds a hidden gemstone of simplicity by unravelling the threads of misunderstanding that for decades have kept it hidden.

      PS: Terry, if/when you reply to my post (at any time), please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I will do likewise.

      Enough (for now): With many thanks and much appreciation for your lovely work;

      Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.