Computability in the Theory of Theories by Philip Gibbs

Stefan,

The code is not just a "mathematical calculation", it produces real, physical images of "coins" on your computer screen, that you can see with your real physical eyes, and photograph with your real physical camera. Feel free to analyze your own photographs of them, if you think it will produce a different result than just analyzing the images produced on the screen. Better still, feel free to 3D-print the images, to make real, physical coins, then analyze those coins, if you believe it will make a difference.

You seem to not comprehend that Bell's theorem, is a theorem. Theorems are merely statements in symbolic logic, not physical theories. The only thing that makes any theorem take on any relevance to physics, is the axioms it is founded upon; if the axioms have relevance, then the theorem does. Otherwise it does not. So the question is, do Bell's axioms, including his unstated, idealistic assumptions, of (1) perfectly identical particles and (2) perfect (error free) detection, have any relevance in the real world?

What the code demonstrates, is that some peculiar, real "particles", that violate Bell's unstated, idealistic assumptions, will also violate his theoretical claim that no real classical particles can violate the theorem. In other words, Bell tests amount to nothing more than a "reduction to an absurdity" demonstration, of the falsity of Bell's assumptions. Rather than proving that the quantum realm is "absurd", the entire 50 year history of Bell's theorem and associated tests, merely proves that his assumptions regarding the existence of "perfect" particles and perfect detectors, are absurd, idealistic caricatures, of the behavior of some "real" particles and real detectors (the detector in the code, is a real, commonly-used, signal processing detector - a matched filter).

Rob McEachern

Robert,

"You seem to not comprehend that Bell's theorem, is a theorem. Theorems are merely statements in symbolic logic, not physical theories. The only thing that makes any theorem take on any relevance to physics, is the axioms it is founded upon; if the axioms have relevance, then the theorem does. Otherwise it does not."

Suppose i could show that the set of axioms *you* use for claiming that Bell's assumptions are absurd - *are themselves absurd*. then, consequently you haven't in any way shown that you can reduce Bell's assumptions to be absurd. Would you then *ad hoc* introduce a new axiom for saving your abstract musings about what is really going on at the level of single particles or would you realize that the things you assumed have nothing to do with physical reality?

Philip,

you say "...and if the calculation cannot be related to known physics in some way then it is a mathematical dead-end".

Questions:

- of what epistemic kind is "cannot be related" ?

- who or what is the knower of "known physics"?

Heinz

Hello, I liked a lot, I agree that the informations are the basis but if I can , can you tell me what is really an information for you generally. For this I d like to see what are for you the foundamental mathematical and physical objects , do you consider strings and a 1D main Cosmic field creating these topologies, geometries, quantum nechanics or a geometrodynamics and fields stoill or coded particles ? because the informations it is this also, we must consider their phiscality. Like that I can see your general philosophy about this universe, this physicality, regards , good luck for the essay Contest, your essay is relevant, one of my favorites, regards

Dear Phil and Robert,

I beg to differ with the concept of information used in this conversation. If I tell you whether a coin is heads or tails, I give you 1 bit of data. Alone, that datum contains log(1) = 0 information.

- Shawn

Dear Phil,

Your essay's awesome! Only one inconsequential problem: I think you spelled desert as dessert? Were you hungry when you wrote that paragraph? :)

- Shawn

It is like I said a good general essay, that is said I cannot agree about the maths like the main pure essence of our universe , like the multiverses , they are just assumptions due to mathematical extrapolations. The problem is probably philosophical. The same for the Theory of theories, it is not possible because we are simply limited in our knowledges and we have many things to add at this universal puzzle. I beleive strongly that the physics are the pure essence of our universe, not the maths, the maths imply too much cobnfusions when they are not well utilised, of course the maths are essential to prove our assumptions, I just say that they imply odd assumptions and interpretations in considering a finite universe , unique in evolution. The informations so like I said need to be described with determinis, what are their soruces and what are they really like foundamental objects, and what ptoduce them philosophically speaking. Without this you cannot explain deeper their meanings. The mathematics are for me a tool permitting to better understand these physics wich are the foundamental main piece. Not the opposite, maybe your error is there about these maths, and the informations. Tell me more and maybe I can be conviced, that said very good general essay. Regards

Dear Professor Gibbs,

Thank you for giving us a Wonderful historical introduction to Physics and Computer algorithms, I was very lucky to read it!!!

By the way, I just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the " real open thinking" is supported. I hope to get some comments from your learned wisdom. Have a look at my essay please.

"A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

=snp.gupta

Dear Dr Gibbs, you are welcome, and thanks for developping your ideas. I like the respect that you have even in having different points of vue , it is rare. I agree that it is Always interesting to share and discuss different general works and philosophies.

I respect so your ideas, we just consider diffently the origin and main cause of the reality. I love the mathematics you know ,like the ideas of Mx Tegmark , I just see differently in considering that the physics are the main piece of puzzle and that these maths are a tool to prove these physics, sometimes we have odd extrapolations due to maths and maybe we must be prudent about them and how we interpret them.

I try also to understand this universe at all scales, and its philosophy but it is not easy, I have developped and improve each Days this theory os spherisation and these 3D coded spheres but I cannot affirm of course , like the strings we cannot affirm what we have at this planck scale and in philosophy, but we evolve each Days also and complete this puzzle with determinism, it is the most important when the logic is respected after all.

I agree about these relative observations, we must relativate after all Always what we observe and try to converge with our universal laws and objects and how they act at all scales.

I like too the works of Shannon, and we search what are really these informations, for me considering a gravitational coded aether made of coded 3D spheres, I see these informations so like that, 3D spheres and they permit the evolution, the ineteractions of exchanges, the properties of matters and the Waves particles duality. I have considered specific finite series sent of this central cosmological Sphere and the space disappears in my reasoning with specific series.

Of course like your reasoning all this can be axiomatised and respect the foundamental deterministic laws.

About the Waves fields particles duality, I agree, I consider mainly that said that the particles are the basis , and if the aether is gravitational and made of 3D spheres in motions oscillations, so we can respect also these fields, but the main essence is particles, all is particles and they oscillate and are in contact due to this aether, so that respect the fields. But like I said we cannot be sure , nor about the strings or the points and geometrodynamics or My 3D spheres, or a pure mathematical universe.

An important point philosophical also is why we are and why we exist? what is the cause of all our codes, particles and fields and this evolution? the sciences Community is divided, a part Thinks that a kind of infinite eternal consciousness create the codes and informations, and the others Think that all comes from the hasard with maths and probabilities, but there also we cannot affirm even if I am persuaded I must say that we have a kind of God of Spinoza.

We evolve and we find answers each Days, after all it is the most importsnt, we complete this universal puzzle.

I thank you for your answer and its relevances, a pleasure to discuss about these things, I liked like I told you your ideas and I respect a lot your works and essay, I wish you good luck for this contect, one of my favorites I must say because you are general and skilling, friendly , regards Dr Gibbs

Hi Phil.

Congrats to an interesting essay.

It is true that all equations can be seen as a simulation, which I have become clear of by reading nobody else than Wheeler. What a guy!

In later years I have also been part of a project doing simulations (Joseph Kover) and with binaries (Allen Framton and Keith Bowden) and it was amusing for Keith because he said - oh, you have rediscovered the combinatorics... so I have read some about the history.

But it did not quite turn out to be combinatorics after all, and we got some nasty numbertheory, so we got a bit perplexed. Numbertheory came out of binaries!!! We started with nothing but light as the fine structure constant, describing time in its interactions...

Happily the deadline is extended so maybe I have my own contribution here, maybe with Steve Dufourny, if we can agree on the details? His model interest me. My interest is on consciousness as you know. I think of Penrose ideas linked with gravitation as an informational 'Indras net'. But the gravity is difficult with its curvatures. Maybe degeneracy comes to my help?

Must read your essay in detail. Congrats again.

Ulla Mattfolk.

Hi Phil.

You say: where the wave function collapse is an illusion of our own experience.

Yes, because it creates a subjective information, we choose what we want to get or what to measure, and we can even change the past, maybe also the future? This change of the wavefunction is lasting just a moment when we extract the information.

You also say: The only viable solution to the measurement problem is to replace materialism with idealism. The observer is not just something different, it is everything. Before quantum theory philosophers proposed various types of idealism: subjective idealism, objective idealism, transcendental idealism, etc. what we are considering now is best termed quantum idealism. This is not some religious or spiritual philosophy. It is pure science.

It is amusing that this is also what Wheeler said. He made the subjective measurement or illusion central, and this lead as an extrapolation to the many worlds scenario, that started with Wheeler also. Keith do work with this.

He put the observer as central to creation simply.

This is the same as the way time is generally treated in our subjective lightcone. But that time vanish in objective perspective, showed Einstein. We can ignore it. But what is then left of time? Just a vector that pushes on the flat spacetime? Or can time be a part of gravitation and also code information?

Why do we struggle with all these possible ideas? How many different ideas are 'out there'? How many degrees of freedom? Maybe something has to fuse them together into 'lumps' or 'boxes'? In cognition that something is chaos or noise, and what we extract becomes then a signal. Note that we as observers are a part of that signal.

Also, if we want a change we must increase the chaos first, climb the latter of Lorentz boost... increase the speed or acceleration etc. (I often feel this is my task here on Earth).

I also much like Matti's view of consciousness as an 'inbetweenness' or a different ontology, what the Lorentz invariance also can be seen as, when we consider fields.

Friendly, Ulla Mattfolk.

Hi, Phil and Steve.

What is information?

It cannot be absolute, never. It is always a part of the whole, just like when we extract information by doing measurements. Like Matti use to say - consciousness can only diminish in each step. Otherwise information must be created by universe, or other observer -participiants, as Wheeler put it.

Shannon took information to be half of everything as optimal. But only as optimal, so this is not either an on-off situation. No digital number?

In holography we create information from a duality, a bit like we do a measurement. We can also create 'fermions' as an half, isolated by rotation. Now I know Wick too badly to say more, but maybe gravitation can be the one rotating it? Its 'rays' are not seen, but are everywhere. Gravity is a special case only.

One question I have pondered is what happens to information in a null-geodesics or in an empty void where we have a field without much matter. Or is it an illusion too? What we see there is Weyl spinors that do the work of gravitation. The spinors are the glue that holds the rotation up. Or the stress is 'conserved' without relaxation there? Like a bubble of vacuum... Here we have no help of general relativity? So what lies outside it?

I also want o ask you about the universal equation of Wheeler deWitt. What is your op.? It looks so simple. Can it explain a graviton?

Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

Hi, Phil.

Can the universal computer be something like what we call 'God'?

And we try to recreate it as small inner baby-universes, subjective. If we think of holography this requires two frames that interact. It can be something like classical and quantum frames? How do you consider the quantum frames are emergent?

Regards, Ulla Mattfolk

Philip. I loved your conclusion. Especially the last two paragraphs. I address the same issues in my essay and, by eliminating the basic assumptions, impossibles and limits imposed by humans, I was able to find a deeper fundamental level and use it to develop an arithmetic/computable conversion of information into physical reality. Doing so, I was able to derive a complete computable model of a multiverse that includes the observable universe. I would appreciate it if you would provide your comments on my essay. Thanks John D Crowell

Hello Ulla, happy to see you here, hello Professor Gibbs, here is general thought about these informations.

Entropical spherical informations and general universal communications , the sortings, superimposings, synchronisations and the link with quantum 3D spheres and the general spherisation of the universe .Why and how ? sources, signals and encodings .....

The complexity appears with the quantities of informations and can be ranked between the minimal and maximal of informations . For this let s consider a main universal emission from the central cosmological sphere, it is there that this infinite energy codes and transform thsi energy in matters, 3D finite series of spheres for me in a gravitational coded aether where this space disappears playing between the cold and heat generally.The source is from there and the aether is the source but it encodes also and recepts in function of evolutive codes and properties disered to create the diversity and communications of evolution in logic.

The works of Shannon can converge and the uncertainty can be better understood at my humble opinion seeing the complexity and number of these finite series having probably the same number than our cosmological finite series of spheres, there is like an universal link between this finite number,

the redondance and the equiprobability can be better understood if we know the real universal meaning of this general thought

The thermodynamics can converge considering two main constants for this gravitational aether, like codes playing between this zero absolute and this planck temperature, it is an assumption but when we consider all the properties of these series, we can understand better the synchronisations, the sortings, the superimposings with all the motions, rotations , oscillations of these 3D spheres.

The second principle in thermodynamics become relevant , Q/T correlated with this entropy and we can converge with the entropy of Shannon and the topological entropy in considering several mathematical Tools of ranking, like the lie derivatives, the topological and euclidian spaces, the Ricci flow and an assymetric Ricci flow, the poincare conjecture , the lie groups and others mathematical Tools. See that the motions, rotations , oscillations, volumes, densities, mass, angles, senses of rotations, moments, and other physical properties can help for the rankings and for a better understanding of communications ,uncertainties and probabilities.

The potential of these series so become the key and the distribution also of informations in function of codes of evolution and properties of matters. It is a question of internal energy and distribution of this energy in function of internal codes and informations. The relevance becomes the infinity of combinations.

Regards

Hi Philip.

Congratulations on your work. I have been a longtime fan and appreciate your contribution to Independent Researchers with viXra (I once contributed an amount that you said was your largest contribution ever). Dr. Hu, who I think now supports viXra, has done a great job.

Your theory of theories contributes to our ability to think about science in a general way. Although I am not a mathematician it contains a framework that I embrace and use. Yes, nature is probabilistic and I also use Shannon's work on information theory. Thanks for bringing us back to one universe. I was having a hard enough time with this one.

We agree on many things but I know that the language we use sometimes keeps us from communicating. As you point out there will always be questions even if we had the ultimate theory. I use the phrase "Mind of creation" to understand the information processes that produce perception of nature around us. This respects the possibility that we are extensions of a creative process that may be an end in itself.

Now for my question. Is the following work OK mathematically? I use Schrodinger based wave functions that collapse at probability 1. There is a huge amount of information in 1*1*1*1, etc. if each 1 is a probability set. I use probabilities that represent energy with the equation: p=e0/E but energy is only separated. There are other probabilities in the set that give E-E=0. So there are two criteria for each set, P=1 and E=0. The sub probabilities multiply to 1 for each quad (example P=1=exp(-15.43)*exp(-12.43)/(exp(-17.43)*exp(-10.43)) and energy zero (101.95+5.08+646.96)- (753.23+0.69)= 0.

With four probabilities in each set (I call this a quad) I could form the Schrodinger probability 1= exp(iEt/H)*exp(-iEt/H). One of the E's was mass plus kinetic energy and the other E was equal and opposite field energy. I reverse engineered some data so that the E's represented one of the quarks (after it transitions to 4.36 MeV while conserving M+KE) in a neutron. I found that this was relativistic because it satisfied E^2=M^2+ (PC)^2. This was important because physicists moved beyond Schrodinger to Dirac equations because Schrodinger was thought not to be relativistic. It is with P=1 and E=0.

The reason I ask is that you have a good grasp on criteria a theory of everything would obey. Whatever I did works.