Dear JJ V,

I am continuing with another post.... Your words for reference.....Suppose for the moment that Newtonian physics offers the correct description of the universe, and that Laplace's demon knows the current positions and momenta of all particles in the universe to only Finite precision...............

Now coming to "Dynamic Universe Model"

I took all this work to be in Cosmology only, did not go into Quantum Physics; was under guidance by Maa Vak, took masses from NASA, Positions from Astronomical Ephemeris as on 01,01;2000 at 00.00 hrs as a starting basis for calculations....

Dynamic Universe model calculates UGF the Universal gravitation force acting on a perticular body by all the bodies in the Universe at that instant of time for that positional setup. This UGF is not a constant, but varies with time and position, as all the bodies are moving DYNAMICALLY all the time.

I hope this is clear....

Best

=snp

    Dear JJV,

    I forgot to add the precision in calculations is " 10-16 %" parts accuracy as available in Excel.

    Precision in measurement is may be " 1% " as the data available....

    Your comments please

    Best

    =snp

    Dear JJV,

    Your words.............. Laplace's demon knows the current positions and momenta of all particles in the universe to only finite precision instead of infinite precision; in other words, suppose that there is a small amount of error in its knowledge of the current state of the universe.

    How much does this initial inaccuracy affect its ability to predict the future, or retrodict the past? It turns out that most deterministic dynamical systems|like collections of interacting particles obeying Newton's laws|exhibit chaos, ...............

    NO CHAOs ANY TIME You verify published books and papers of Dynamic Universe Model........... !!

    Best

    =snp

    Dear JJV,

    I will stop for now, by seeing your response, I will discuss some more..........

    Best

    =snp

    I really appreciated this analysis and taking to task of Laplaces' demon. As someone unfamiliar with a lot of these examples I found myself still gripped and interested by the elegant and matter of fact writing style you had. It really made the subject much more tenable to grasp for all kinds of readers, something not easily done by many in your field. All in all an eloquent paper that satiated my curiosity while at the same time piqued my interest for more understanding of the other topics and examples you brought up.

    -M. Perry

      John,

      Quite a bit to unpack, John, but quite accessible and interesting. With somewhat of a liberal arts background, I appreciate the imagery of the black witch moth and the legendary specter of death it depicts. Chaos theory for this subject is appropriate as well. Like the way you characterize the problem the contest assigns. I like it that you don't pretend to know the answers but impose on us many relevant truths. One point suggested is that our cognitive powers have evolved to suit our environment, something I believe I touch upon, and our classical level perceptions have necessarily not incorporated quantum truths, which I also touch upon. My rating is your fourth, which I mention because we have an evaluator who gives 1s w/o comments sometimes choosing to time it with those who comment. I rate it among the highest.

      Jim Hoover

        Dear JJ Vastola,

        I really enjoyed reading your discussion and analysis of Laplace's Demon and quantum mechanics. You have a very creative style of exemplifying complex ideas into simple notions without losing the true essence of the concepts. Your essay raised many ideas in my head about the attempt of different mathematicians who attempt to come up with a single equation that describes the underpinnings of this universe, and in some sense, it made me think more about the P vs. NP problem as well. I know I am connecting all these things, but I am genuinely intrigued by the honesty reflected in your essay. Thank you for sharing your work.

        Best,

        SV

          6 days later

          Thanks for reading!

          That's a good question. Since, at the end of the day, Laplace's demon is essentially just a really high-end computer, you're probably on to something. I never thought about the parallels between reading/writing/processing memory and thinking/doing experiments, but they seem pretty striking now that you point them out.

          If there is any difference between them, it is probably only the moral difference that I'm emphasizing the demon's ability to 'think' in terms of different (possibly emergent) vocabularies. It calls to mind our own ability to do such a thing: how can we so adeptly switch between thinking about a shirt, its fabric, and the atoms that make it up? There must be a way to compute when it's appropriate to use one vocabulary or another, but it seems hopelessly difficult to pin down what that algorithm might look like in general.

          Thank you for the thoughtful comments! I'll definitely take a look at your essay.

          Judging the correctness of your theory is beyond my pay grade, I'm afraid. It looks very interesting, though.

          Thank you for the kind words, Jim. Yes, I found the imagery of the black witch moth (and some of the surrounding folklore) quite captivating as well.

          The point about our cognitive powers evolving to suit our environment is important, I think. I'm not sure what it would be like to wield a different set of cognitive powers, but I'm sure some kind of different brain architecture (or maybe even no centralized brain at all, a la jellyfish) is physically conceivable. And if it was appreciably different, maybe our ability to understand the world would be appreciably different too.

          I'll definitely take a look at your essay!

          Thank you for reading! Yes, it's fascinating to wonder about the possibility that we can describe the universe in complete detail via some equation or set of equations. What might that equation look like? Could we comprehend it? We can comprehend things like the Schrodinger equation quite well, but it remains to be seen whether it or something like it offers the full story.

          John,

          It's always good to see that someone reads your essay with some interest and with keen comments. I thinks it helps to promote the kind of analysis and thinking the foundation means to foster. Thanks, for reading and for your incisive remarks. I didn't get a chance to rate yours before, but I will now. It will be your 6th since people bomb at the time of comments.

          Jim

          Dear John,

          thank you for a very well-argued and interesting essay. No doubt one of the best I have read so far (and I have read quite some by now!). I also see a great deal of common elements between our views.

          Your variant of demon that aims at operationalizing Laplace's demon is really insightful. I see in your essay the seeds of something that I have been thinking for quite awhile (and partially already expressed in previous works), namely the "inaccessibility in principle" of certain information. I see this as an intermediate position between the ontological indeterminism (i.e. furute states are not yet determined) and the epistemic view (i.e. there is a state but we don't know it). This "inaccessibility in principle" characterizes somehow your demon and it is in fact a very useful concepts.

          I would also like to add the following comment (I think it is kind of obvious from your essay, but I don't think it is explicitely stated there). It is true as you say that a quantum Laplace's demon -due to the Schrödinger's equation- would have the advantage that small deviations of demon's description from the "true state of affairs" would not spread exponentially, contrarily to what happens in classical chaotic systems. Yet, while in classical physics there is the unspokens assumption that the there is a real state independent of measurements, in quantum physics this is no longer the case. This is to relate to the scenario that you discuss where the demon has is subjected to "the same epistemological constraints we do--i.e. that it cannot access the wave function, which is unobservable, and instead must make measurements of observable quantities to interrogate the state of the universe". So, in some sense, classical physics has in my opinion stronger metaphysical assumptions, which I have called "principle of infinite precision" (see my essay for details).

          As for the dead of Laplace's demon, you might like to have a look at my paper with Gisin (https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.03697) and references thereof, where we discuss similar arguments than yours.

          In case you have time to have a look at my essay I would be glad to receive your feedback, and discuss further how our ideas relate to each other.

          Anyway, congrats again for a great essay, top grade from my side!

          All the best,

          Flavio

            Dear John,

            Wow! What an essay.

            I would like to imagine a world where Laplace's demon could answer all questions about the future in that world. So, say the world worked like a fractal. It was generated by a simple algorithm, so it started with a single number in space and then rapidly expanded with ever more numbers added, becoming ever more complex. Say it not only generated new numbers in space but also changed the already created numbers. There would then be space full of change, a little like our own world.

            If someone asked a question about how the fractal would look in the future, the demon could then answer it by restarting the algorithm in another place and just running it at a much faster speed than the original. It would need to be assumed that the demon, its model, and the person asking the question would all need to be outside the original fractal. Also, that there was constant creation in that world, so no unitarity!

            I only mention this, as I think there is an interesting argument to say that Quantum Mechanics could be reinterpreted as a simple algorithm expanding the Universe in a fractal like way (see my essay if you are interested).

            Thanks for a beautifully written, clear and thought-provoking essay, with a very well-argued conclusion.

            All the very best,

            David

              Thank you for the very kind words, Flavio!

              I agree that information being "inaccessible in principle" is a useful concept, and that one must be mindful that determinism vs indeterminism may not be black and white. However the universe really 'is', there are ample restrictions on what we can know about it...whether it's better to describe the universe as it 'is' or in terms of what we can ever possibly know about it is an interesting question. I don't pretend to know the answer!

              Great point about classical vs quantum mechanics. I really enjoyed discussion along these lines in your essay, and never thought before about the strong metaphysical assumption that observables really 'are' determined to infinite precision in classical mechanics, though our ability to measure them is restricted. Perhaps they are not determined to infinite precision. It's hard to imagine a way to tell the difference. Still, which formulation is more useful in practice is amenable to debate/discussion, I think.

              Thanks for the paper link, I'll take a look at it.

              Dear John,

              I enjoyed a lot to read your essay. Laplace demon is hunting since a long time. I hoped your essay could help me, to get rid of him. One good thing is, that you made him physical and took him a few of his superpowers. But by submitting him to the epistemic restriction we as human have, or any physical object, that can transmit or gather information, does not chase away the metaphysical demon. In fact, how you describe the relation between, what can known and what is, is in the traditional realist fashion.

              To chase a way the metaphysical demon, one has to justify, why epistemic notions should matter at all for the understanding of our universe.

              I like how you equip your physical demon. Von Weizsäcker, who wanted to construct a time dependent formal logic, took an operational approach to formal languages and mathematics. While animals instinctively react (take action) on sensory inputs, humans can imagine the actions they take. He constructs the meaning of propositions as imagination of possible actions. This - I think - is what is described in your points 1 to 4 for the equipment for the demon.

              Von Weizsäcker's approach does, in my opinion, bridge the somehow artificial gap between the meaning of concepts of a formal language and the 'concepts of the physical world'. This because the formal concepts depend on the laws themselves. I belief this could chase out the metaphysical demon.

              How such a world without this demon could look like is described in my essay.

              Luca

                Dear John,

                I enjoyed your very readable demon essay.

                I liked the way you first introduce the demon as LaPlace did as an omnipotent being, the considered the consequences of the demon inside the Universe and then eventually 'humanised' the demon and consider what we can eventually learn given more time and analysis of future experiments.

                I also discuss the demon in my essay, albeit in a much briefer fashion, and draw some conclusions as well, before invoking Maxwell's demon as well. I hope you enjoy my angles, as much as I enjoyed yours!

                Best Regards,

                Lockie Cresswell