Tegmark's Mathematical Universe

qsa,

I am all for intellectual curiosity and venture! Trust me on that! But some questions by necessity cannot have true answers. Example, can you truly know your father? All you can know is your experiences and observations and understanding of him. But you cannot truly know him!

I argue analogously we cannot truly know "what is" ('substance') of the Universe. But can only know our measurements, observations and understanding of "what is".

All religions and metaphysical systems seek to know "what is". And all fail! But in their seeking, these create much destruction and injustice and dogma. We can avoid all this by realizing the limits of knowledge.

Constantinos

Constantinos,

I am 58 and my father is 83 and NOW I do understand his ontology. He always had my best interest at heart but I was too stupid to realize it. Of course, following one's own desires does sound good at the time.

Seriously, this blog about MUH has been going on for six years, do you really think people will stop thinking about ontology. When I came up with my own theory at the time I did not know about Dr Tegmark , Wolfram or Conway. As a matter of fact, I was fooling around just like I have always done ever since I was young. Never ever I thought I would hit the big one, my theory cuts strait to the heart of the issue and directly confirms MUH.

http://www.qsa.netne.net

more detailed explanation are in posts 20,25,43 in this thread.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?140913-%93

Reality-is-nothing-but-a-mathematical-structure-literally%94

sorry if these links are repetitious for some.

Qsa,

You did not answer my rhetorical question! Happy you now understand your father! But do you truly know him! Perhaps you can be more forthcoming and explain your theory is simple sensible terms. I am interested!

Constantinos

Re "And there is SUBSTANCE, that which does not require our presence or observation to exist. The real universe is made of substance" Marcel, 19 Feb 2013, 04:22 GMT;

"Although a unique substance makes for an incredibly efficient use of numbers they must support an actual substance that exists by itself" Marcel, 2 Mar 2013, 20:20 GMT;

"Isn't this has been the main point of 20th century physics, that there is no such a thing as a substance" qsa, 10 Mar 2013, 01:19 GMT :

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

Surely the "substance" is information. It is clear that information (e.g. about mass or charge) is apprehended in the underlying reality. But this information is not an objective reality - it is a subjective reality: information has a point of view; it can only be apprehended subjectively. Information is subjective experience*.

Marcel, one can never "remove himself from the status of observer" (Marcel, 11 Mar 2013, 18:17 GMT) - the subjective nature of information is the nature of reality.

So there is no objective information. The closest thing to objective information seems to be represented information. The phenomenon of represented information is probably due to the subjective nature of information: from the point of view of a subject, the rest of reality in effect represents (many interconnected aspects of) information. So words on the page of a newspaper, or a law of nature mathematical equation displayed on a computer screen, represent information to a subject. These words and symbols must be decoded (by a subject) before the intended information can be apprehended as subjective experience.

Lorraine

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

* I mean information is subjective experience ONLY in appropriately integrated physical systems like particles, plant cells and people. I don't include computers because:

1. Computers don't have the internal physical interconnections to allow subjective experience (subjective experience of a physical object perhaps being describable as summary information about the surrounding reality and the internal reality of the physical object)

2. Computers only deal with REPRESENTED information not information per se.

Re "Given what we do know from physics, it is reasonable to assume that the World is inherently mathematical of nature" Saibal, 12 Mar 2013, 23:22 GMT;

"I argue in my essay, 'The Metaphysics of Physics', that all 'physical laws' can and should be derived as 'mathematical identities' " Constantinos, 13 Mar 2013, 02:39 GMT;

"The final description/foundations of reality will be simple... this description will have a mathematical structure." Henk, 13 Mar 2013, 18:00 GMT :

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

The underlying reality is not 100% representable by mathematical equations e.g. the precise details of the outcomes of quantum events are not predictable because the situation is not representable as a mathematical equation. THEREFORE, one cannot say without qualification that reality has a mathematical structure. The quantum exception to the rule shows that the word "mathematical" is not an adequate description of the nature of reality.

Lorraine

Your analogy between knowing a person and the fundamentals of the building block of the universe is not that strong. Even if they were "similar" it is still an analogy and nothing more, and I will not dwell on it.

As to my theory, all the links I have given explains my theory in a very simple language since the theory itself is simple. Moreover, the write up and the explanation are fairly short. Although, to fully appreciate my theory you might have to run the simulations which I know can be tedious for most.

Reality exists hence we say it is true. But what is really true besides that more than anything else which we can really trust, it is mathematical facts. So, to my mind I connect both since both seem to be a statement of truth. So I took a guess that reality is something akin to a circle (truth). The relations between the points give you a mathematical structure whereby you get PI which defines the structure of the circle.

The structure that leads to our reality is random numbers and certain unavoidable relations (and only possible ones) between them. That is all. It is the most generalized structure possible.

The system (I will not use the word model although you could with some caution) seems to mimic reality by exposing some of the very important essential features of Schrodinger equation, Dirac equation, QFT and Gravity! But only certain essential features of these theories, probably some heavy work and more elaborate simulations needed to map to the standard physics.

On the other hand the system exposes features of reality that standard physics is simply in no position to do so. Particularly, the Lagrangian of the system falls out from the simulation and you get the values of charge, mass, c, h_bar and other values, even the Fine Structure Constant. Not to mention the beautiful unified picture of space (its points are the crossing of the lines-dynamic-), time(change of state-does not actually exist-), mass, charge, and energy.

The other really big result which I obtain is the essence of Dirac equation included the notorious non-locality. When I try to simulate the 2D situation, I am forced to restrict my line throwing activity to only lines that can go between particles directly so as to keep the invariance of quantities calculated in case the frame is rotated. And Wala, I get two particles to interact through their width in the second axis and it does not matter if each is on the other side of the universe, they are both linked!!!! When I calculate spin (what I believe to be) one is up the other down.

There are many other things in the system which I have not tried to do too much yet mainly due to lack of time including gravity which I have done in limited way and I do get the small attractive force but probably much more work is needed.

I should mention that the theory is at heart a generalization of Buffon's needle which ties to many other concepts which are used in high end physics like twisters, categories, network theory, Ising and many others.

The system is very similar to Strand Theory by DR. Christoph Schiller. and this FQXI essay

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/950

Constantinos,

Sorry, that last post was meant as a reply to your post.

Re "Something more primitive than mathematics yet eminently connected to it; logic!" Marcel, 24 Feb 2013, 14:49 GMT;

"physical laws and physical properties turn out to be mathematical laws and mathematical properties" Henk, 13 Mar 2013, 18:00 GMT :

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

Surely logic and mathematics don't have any independent or primary existence: they are like a PROPERTY or a consequence of representing some of the aspects of the underlying reality? Surely logic, and applied and theoretical mathematics, are predicated on the primary existence of 3 types of things in the underlying reality: information categories; information relationship (represented e.g. by "+ - ﾃｷ ﾃ--"); and the type of thing that is represented by the symbol "="?

Our logical and mathematical representations derive from the existing structure of reality. But while reality moves and changes, these representations just sit there dead on the paper they were written on: they have no ability to effect change in their own right. In other words these representations are limited: they do not adequately represent the full nature of reality.

Lorraine

To QSA Mar 13 22:43

O You may have to read again the part I wrote on truth systems..

O As for satisfaction... Yes! I answer my own questions to my satisfaction. I am my first client.

O If you can`t figure out the "circle" thing, you don't understand space-time, really!

`

Henk Grimm Mar 13 18:00

O ... the final DESCRIPTION of nature in physics and maths ... Agree totally. BUT, if you want the final UNDERSTANDING of nature, it will be about the logic of the universe i.e. how it works by itself. Physicality requires your hand, maths requires your brain; the universe requires neither to function.

Lorraine mar 15 22:44

....One can never remove himself from the status of observer .... Well, it requires more effort than displayed around here 

.....There is no objective information.... Agree! It demands that we remove from the information that part that we contributed to. The transforms, the integration, the mindset etc. Lots to strip away and QM and GR help us in that work.

Lorraine Mar 15 23:22

If you accept the quantum event as statistical ... then it is still maths? Determinism is traded for probability ... still maths!

Lorraine mar 16 00:14 ( Bo to ged !) 

Agree! Dead on the paper is the finished event and all summed up with an = sign. But look out the window and everything is moving and changing. Once on paper the time passing background is gone integrated into a time passed a.k.a. time duration. Want to understand the universe ? Keep the time running and go from there.

Marcel,

qsa,

How does your claim of a Mathematical Universe fit your Computer Simulation Universe? At any rate, I don't think we are all that far apart. You got my attention! I will spend some time understanding your computer simulations more. But I'll contact you by email so we don't wear out our host's patience.

But first let me try to clarify my analogy between knowing a person and knowing the Universe. I don't wish to belabor the point (it's peripheral really to our pending discussion). But just so you realize there is much more to this analogy than you allow. At the heart of this is 'knowing'. What 'knowing' really means and how it comes about. My view is the same processes that are involved in 'knowing another person (or anything for that matter)' also occur in 'knowing the Universe'.

I think you like to draw a distinction. Arguing these are different processes of 'knowing'. That the Universe has universal immutable 'fundamental building blocks' which are knowable 'in themselves' by humans in some absolute way (and not our conceptual creations of these in our theories). I see our 'knowing' of the Universe as human and as emergent through our human experiences and in our mind.

But there is more similarity in my analogy. Both 'another person' and the Universe are independent entities existing 'outside' of us having and following their own 'mind'. We can only know our experiences of these by interacting with them. Our experiences consist of our observations, our measurements, our understanding, our ideas, our theories, our reasoning. Note here the pervasive 'our'. It just can't be any other way!

Thus, while we may know our understandings of a person, can we really know them truly as they are in themselves? I think the answer is clear when we think of another person. But while I argue this same principle of knowing is also the case for knowing the Universe, you disagree. That's fine. But why do you think knowing the Universe is a different kind of human knowing than knowing another person?

Constantinos

Constantinos,

My theory confirms the MUH because it generates QM WITHOUT the use of any experimental values like c, h_bar and Fine Structure Constants (see the Bohr atom simulation). In my theory these (and the relations among them) become an output. Even the mass of the electron appears through simulation. This is the criteria taken by Tegmark for a possible MUH theory (not conjecture).

Yes, your own observation among many others, confirm that math could be more than the tool for "modeling".

As to your analogy, it is very well known that human (sociology and psychology) and animal behavior and indeed their biology are considered to be "inexact" science by their nature. While the science of physics, chemistry and math are considered as exact sciences. That is why we are able to calculate "Anomalous magnetic dipole moment "to a very high degree of accuracy which is considered to be the epic of science. All this have become very clear after 400 years of hardcore science work.

Even today there is a controversy as to if these inexact science can become exact one day. But some people are trying to convince us that our exact sciences might turn out to be "inexact" contrary to overwhelming historical evidence.

qsa,

Some quick points in a way of a first response.

1)Though I have great expectations and appreciation for Computer Simulations, I do not consider these as Mathematics. Perhaps more than Mathematics!

2)My proposal that physical laws can and should be derived as mathematical identities and your Computer Simulations of Physics are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. My hunch is both may be needed.

3)I am not equating 'soft' Social Sciences with 'hard' Physical Sciences. Rather, my analogy has to do with the process of 'knowing' (anything). I believe this to be the same and independent of subject. You believe this is different and depending on the subject matter. No matter. It's not a 'deal breaker'! Your view on this is more commonly held. I am perfectly content to hold radical and uncommon views. And as long as my reasoning is sound and sensible to me, I will continue holding this view.

4)I have reasons to believe the "very high degree of accuracy" between our calculations and experimental data may be the result of mathematical tautologies that underlay our physical theories. I have shown this to be true, for example, for Planck's Law for blackbody radiation. This physical Law is actually a mathematical tautology and not a physical law per se. This would explain why the experimental spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve! No other explanation of this exists but mine!

Constantinos

Constantinos,

The simulation that I use is indeed mathematics. It is nothing but a long serious of additions, multiplication and division, nothing fancy. However, this system can be converted to regular but high end mathematics one day. A similar system is already in use by a variation of non-commutative geometry that is used in quantum gravity, the math looks quite hairy.

It is somewhat paradoxical that my view is the minority (very small), and yours is a bigger minority. The majority proper science view is agnostic, the important thing for it is modeling and RESULTS, and it is not concerned about ontology one way or another. It is paradoxical/ironic because my view has a lot of faith in proper science. Of course, here I do not count religious opinion as a view.

While I have seen many nice attempts in the non-mainstream physics, my theory OTOH works at very much fundamental level. It shows what the origin of reality is by showing how and why it arises. It is the only mathematical structure available, using fundamental entities, to produce a dynamic universe which is ours. All other designs will lead to static or quasi-static "dead" universes.

Constantinos,

Sorry, the first line should have been read as

"The simulation that I use is indeed mathematics. It is nothing but a long series of "

qsa,

We may be splitting the same hair of a larger argument. In my department (when I was in graduate school) the Computer Science Department was different from the Mathematics Department. As was also the Statistics Department. I see some differences between the three disciplines. No matter.

Please respond to my explanation why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve based on Planck's Law. Likewise, I argue, such high degree of accuracy as also claimed by QM is due to underlying mathematical truisms not yet fully understood or shown as such.

What are your thoughts on that?

Constantinos

It seems to me that Professor Tegmark's Mathematical Universe can be united with Einstein's Unified Field Theory to produce a Theory of Everything. I tried to submit my thoughts about this to FQXi's "It from Bit or Bit from It?" contest - with the intent of showing the universe is nonlinear, and "It" is quantum entangled with "Bit" (which means the effect, whether we consider that to be "It" or "Bit", is retrocausal with the cause and instantly influences the cause). But I don't think I'm eligible to enter the contest since my explanation, in essay form, of all modern science's objections to Einstein's unified field caused me to exceed the word limit - and I can't see any way to reduce the essay without making it incomplete. According to this TOE, string theory is validated and parallel universes are invalidated. I'll make a short summary here and attach the essay submission, for those who want more details (the essay can also be viewed at http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0218 and https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rodney_Bartlett/?ev=pub_int_doc_dlext).

It is my belief that Charles Misner and John Wheeler were correct in 1957 when they said, in the "Annals of Physics", that Albert Einstein's latest equations united gravitation and electromagnetism, and demonstrated the unified field theory ("Classical physics as geometry" - Volume 2, Issue 6, December 1957, Pages 525-603). (The unified field wouldn't be complete without references to mass increase and time dilation - so those are included here.) In January 2012, I wrote a little article called "Misner/Wheeler correct about Einstein's Unified Field Theory being successful". That was just a summary of this present article, sketching its basic outline and the points that needed to be filled in. I wrote to Professor Misner (the coauthor of the 1957 article which I'm taking another look at) over a year ago for information about his article with John Wheeler regarding Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory. His reply was very helpful indeed. I wrote a short piece at the time, which turned out to be just a basic outline of my present article. I've spent 15 months filling it with more and more detail. I still think Professor Misner was correct. I've tried to reconcile Einstein's theory with modern concerns.

The first point of debate is - it has been argued that the gravitational fields, if known everywhere but only for a limited time, do not contain enough information about their electromagnetism to allow the future to be determined, so Einstein's unified theory fails. Physicists also argue that a unified "theory of everything" must now include not just gravity and electromagnetism, but also the weak and strong nuclear forces plus dark matter and dark energy. I address all these concerns in detail. The ideas I came up with are very unusual sometimes, but they were necessary to fit in with the unified theory being correct. Despite most of the world considering Einstein's unified field to be a failure, it's interesting that his work is making my heart beat a little faster more than 80 years after he started work on it. As my article shows, the unified field is based in mathematics but will prove to have remarkable consequences not just for maths, but also for the physical world. I therefore chose to write it in the form of an essay (there is mathematics, but very few equations) that uses concepts like planetary motion, revised gravitation, and string theory to arrive at a theory of everything. The essay might be suitable for a young teenager living in the second part of this century. Why is it written this way? "If a complete unified theory was discovered, it would only be a matter of time before it was digested and simplified ... and taught in schools, at least in outline. We should then all be able to have some understanding of the laws that govern the universe and are responsible for our existence." ("A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, Introduction by Carl Sagan)

England's Professor Penrose has argued that the gravitational fields, if known everywhere but only for a limited time, do not contain enough information about their electromagnetism to allow the future to be determined, so Einstein's unified theory fails. My approach regarding the nature of time - it's impossible to point to the 4th dimension of time, so this cannot be physical. Since the union of space-time is well established in modern science, we can assume the 4th dimension is actually measurement of the motions of the particles occurring in the 3 dimensions of length, width, and height [0]. My approach concerning unification of those particles with gravity and EM - suppose Albert Einstein was correct when he said gravitation plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles (in "Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure Of The Elementary Particles Of Matter?", a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). And suppose he was also correct when he said gravitation is the warping of space-time. Then it is logical that 1) gravitation would play a role not only in elementary particles but also in the constitution of the nuclear strong force and the weak nuclear force i.e. the nuclear forces may not be separate from gravitation but may be modifications of it , and 2) the warping of space-time that produces gravity means space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and in the nuclear forces. Therefore, time is unified with the gravitational and electromagnetic fields.

[0] The basic standard of time in the universe is the measurement of the motions of photons i.e. of the speed of light. This is comparable to the 1960's adoption on Earth of the measurement of time as the vibration rate of cesium atoms. At lightspeed, time = 0 (it is stopped). Below 300,000 km/sec, acceleration or gravitation causes time dilation (slowing of time as the speed of light is approached). If time's 0, space is also 0 because space and time coexist as space-time whose warping (gravity) is necessarily 0 too. Spacetime/gravity form matter/mass, so the latter pair can't exist at lightspeed and photons are massless (even when not at rest). Mass increase at increasing accelerations is inevitable because the object is encountering more spacetime and gravity (the producers of mass). But mass increase cannot become infinitely large since mass doesn't exist at lightspeed. The object is converted into energy which means mass and energy must be equivalent and Energy must equal Mass related to the Speed of Light (E=mc^2, in the words of Albert Einstein).

[0 continued] The former pair (spacetime/gravity) also lose existence at the speed of light. Since the universe is based on mathematics (see below), it's possible to progress in number-line fashion from the positive acceleration in space-time to the state of zero spacetime at lightspeed ... and go beyond that to negative 5th-dimensional hyperspace described by imaginary numbers (see below). Later parts of this article show that this hyperspace beyond the speed of light allows a particular kind of time travel (various interpretations of Einstein's theories have suggested superluminal velocity permits time travel). We couldn't reach this hyperspace by travelling faster-than-light because we would have turned into energy - and no energy can exceed light's speed. But we can access hyperspace at subluminal speeds by "inverting" space. Since there is zero, or no, spacetime at light speed; all distances - between here and there, past and future - are totally eliminated (a photon experiences the whole universe - and all time - in its existence). It is stated in [3.1] that the laws of gravity and the inverse-square combine to say "infinity equals the total elimination of distance". So infinity exists at light speed. In "Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku (Penguin Books 2008, p.227), ".. whenever we naively try to marry these two theories (general relativity and quantum theory), the resulting theory makes no sense: it yields a series of infinite answers that are meaningless." We see, by [0] and [0 continued], that infinite answers are supposed to be arrived at because "infinity (in the sense of total elimination of distance) exists at light speed". Infinity and infinite answers are not barriers to uniting general relativity and quantum theory. When we realize that c=∞ (infinity exists at light speed), those infinite answers can yield not nonsense but real meaning.

Maths wasn't my favourite subject in school, but I nevertheless feel that Prof. Tegmark is correct about this being a Mathematical Universe. So with the help of string theory, these are my conclusions about how the cosmos works when it's mathematically unified with the quantum world. Warning - conservative souls who are afraid to speculate may see "bananas stuff" ahead:

If the nuclear forces may be different facets of gravitation, is it possible that electromagnetism also has no existence independently of it? (In this case, gravity would be the underlying cause of all repelling and attracting.) This is possible if all forces have a mathematical origin, in which case a few ideas can be borrowed from string theory's ideas of everything being ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in a four-dimensional looped superstring. We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a Mobius loop - or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current [2] Combination of the 2 loops' currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional Klein bottle whose construction from binary digits would make it malleable and flexible, deleting any gap and molding its border to perfectly fit surrounding subuniverses. [3] This Klein bottle could possibly be a figure-8 Klein bottle because its similarities to a doughnut's shape describes an idea suggested by mathematics' "Poincare conjecture". The conjecture has implications for the universe's shape and says you cannot transform a doughnut shape into a sphere without ripping it. One interpretation follows: This can be viewed as subuniverses shaped like Figure-8 Klein Bottles gaining rips called wormholes when extended into the spherical spacetime that goes on forever (forming one infinite superuniverse which is often called the multiverse when subuniverses - which share the same set of physics' laws - are incorrectly called parallel universes[3.1] which are wrongly claimed to each possess different laws). Picture spacetime existing on the surface of this doughnut which has rips in it. These rips provide shortcuts between points in space and time - and belong in a 5th-dimensional hyperspace. The boundary where subuniverses meet could be called a Cosmic String (they'd be analogous to cracks that form when water freezes into ice i.e. cosmic strings would form as subuniverses cool from their respective Big Bangs).

[2] The flow of ones and zeros can produce waves that cancel and result in electric neutrality and masslessness - they can produce waves that reinforce and result in mass or electric charge. Whether the charge is positive or negative depends on the precise orientation of the Mobius. The orientation of a Mobius is equivalent to the relative positions of 2 Mobius loops. Synchronous motion of the currents in the loops means a neutral neutron can have a large mass of 939.566 MeV/c^2 (approx. 1839 times an electron's energy) because both quantum Mobius loops are in motion - moving together, at the same rate - and producing 939.566 MeV of energy. (This might be adapted to a neutral Higgs particle whose known example has a mass of about 125 or 126 GeV/c^2.) The orientation of a Mobius (relative positions of 2 Mobius loops) determines the many combinations of fractions, negativeness, neutrality or positivity of mass, charge and spin. The combinations are finite because the two-dimensional Mobius programs from which fermions and bosons originate, plus each four-dimensional Klein bottle which manifests and expresses the particles, are themselves limited and finite.

[3] Currents in the two 2-dimensional programs called Mobius loops are connected into a four-dimensional figure-8 Klein bottle by the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1's and 0's depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles' "wave packets" - into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles. As Bob Berman's article "Infinite Universe" ("Astronomy" - Nov. 2012) wrote, "The evidence keeps flooding in. It now truly appears that the universe is infinite" and "Many separate areas of investigation - like baryon acoustic oscillations (sound waves propagating through the denser early universe), the way type 1a supernovae compare with redshift, the Hubble constant, studies of cosmic large-scale structure, and the flat topology of space - all point the same way."

"Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society" reports that the WiggleZ galaxy survey confirms that matter is distributed evenly at the largest scales. But if we disregard the largest scale of infinite flatness; smaller scales reflect the idea of fractals e.g. from roughly spherical galaxy clusters, down to stars, down to atoms.

(after examining recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, NASA declared "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error." - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html;

and according to "The Early Universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background: Theory and Observations" by Norma G. Sànchez, Yuri N. Parijskij (published by Springer, 31/12/2003), the shape of the Universe found to best fit observational data is the infinite flat model).

[3.1] God's existence cannot possibly be scientifically comprehended in the current non-unified understanding of the cosmos. Thus, many scientists need to invoke the existence of an unlimited number of parallel universes having limitless combinations of the laws of physics (so one of those universes would produce all the correct laws that enable beings such as ourselves to exist). However, BITS (BInary digiTS) only suggest existence of the divine if time is linear. A non-supernatural God is proposed via the inverse-square law coupled with eternal quantum entanglement, but Einstein taught us that time is warped. Warped time is nonlinear, making it at least possible that the BITS composing space-time and all particles originate from the computer science of humans. The inverse-square law states that the force between two particles becomes infinite if the distance of separation between them goes to zero. Remembering that gravitation partly depends on the distance between the centres of objects, the distance of separation between objects only goes to zero when those centres occupy the same space-time coordinates (not merely when the objects' sides are touching i.e. infinity equals the total elimination of distance - the infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits). Zero separation is the case in quantum-entangled space-time and physicist Michio Kaku says in his book "Physics of the Impossible" that modern science thinks the whole universe has been quantum-entangled forever. This means there's still room for the infinity known as God. God would be a suprapantheistic union of the universe's spatial, temporal, hyperspatial, material and conscious parts; forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification, and a universal intelligence. Science's own Law of Conservation says the total mass (or matter) and energy in the universe does not change, though the quantity of each varies (I interpret this Law as saying - to get matter and energy, you have to start with matter and energy; which means that time must be warped). So what happens if we subtract humans of the distant future - with their ability to travel into the past and use incomprehensibly-advanced cosmogenesis, terraforming and biotechnology (cosmos, Earth-like planet, and life-generating abilities) from the origins of life? It becomes impossible for inorganic materials - and referring to the creation of amino acids in the laboratory by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller in 1952, relatively simple amino acids - to be assembled into complex plants and animals, whose adaptations are often called evolution.

The strings of physics' string theory are the binary digits of 1 and 0 used in computers and electronics. The digits are constantly switching between their representations of the "on" and "off" states. This switching is usually referred to as a flow or current. Currents in the two 2-dimensional programs called Mobius loops are connected into a four-dimensional figure-8 Klein bottle by the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1's and 0's depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles' "wave packets" - into an infinite number of 8-Kleins. Each Klein 1) is one of the universe's subuniverses (our own is 13.7 billion years old), 2) is made flexible through its binary digits which seamlessly, or almost seamlessly, join it to surrounding subuniverses and eliminate its central hole, and 3) possesses warped time and space because its foundation is the programmed curves in its mathematical Mobius loops (along with the twists they generate). The universe functions according to the rules of fractal geometry. So the Mobius does not exist only at the cosmic level. It also manifests at the quantum scale, giving us photons and protons etc. Space and time are no longer separate, but are an indivisible space-time. So if space and the universe are infinite, how can time not be eternal? The past and the future must both extend forever (the idea of time being finite arises from confusion of our subuniverse with the one infinite universe).

BITS (BInary digiTS) only suggest existence of the divine if time is linear. Although a non-supernatural God is proposed via the inverse-square law's infinite aspect coupled with eternal quantum entanglement, Einstein taught us that time is warped. Warped time is nonlinear, making it at least possible that the BITS composing space-time and all particles originate from the computer science of humans.Attachment #1: Unified_Field_Relativity_and_Quantum_Mechanics_Meet_String_Theory_Parallel_Universes_the_Mathematical_Universe_and_TOE.pdf

Dude you rock! I vote this as best answer!

Writing at risk,

There is a mismatch between life and the universe's mathematical object. The

universe converges strongly on how our nine planets have formed. Look at our

galaxy from the macroscopic to the microscopic and those are the examples of the convergence of early matter and energy. The foundation or building materials of life is the mathematics of the universe. Life has a different organization than the states of matter. Life has an algorithm. Life is a state machine. Life is the result of information imposed on foundational matter. Once the machine is broken, the elements of life respond to the forces of the inorganic states of matter. Think about the density and the thickness of photosynthetic life on the ocean surface and land. It is a film and in our solar system, a vanishingly rare 2D surface. See also FQXi You Tube "Michael Russell on LIFE".

Notice how unlikely it is for an algorithm to arise out of our mathematical universe, biological complexity and biochemistry necesssary for the most simple functioning form of life. What we have not done is quantify the complexity of life as a state of matter. Life only generates matter with an algorithm. We currently believe that life as a plasmid, Rna or viral form happened only once. Why not a long epoch of primitive genesis or even now? If life generating from inorganic processes is 100% likely why should it stop? Why only once in a very short period of time? Lately we have turned our search to Mars, comets and extraterrestrial panspermia as an

origin of life. Why stop at speculations that go back further in time and solar system "AU" distances? We have 152 close encounter orbits with other solar systems and the chance to exchange mass with them. What was close to us 4.5 billion years ago? Is that where we got Pluto and Uranus? What objects are

nearby that came from galactic collisions?

Limiting ourselves to vanishingly small 2D surfaces for the genesis of life asks the question, "Why at all?" The precursor has to be a 3D region of space where the entropy is equal to the entropy of the simplest form of life. Life might form in an early kind of small red or brown dwarf galaxy with carbon, where there are low energy or cold volumes of space, not large planetary surfaces, supporting tunneling chemistry in the carbon compounds formed by collision. Titan is warm but might be an upper limit on composition and size as an example.

Is this universe too dominated by the foundational mathematical object to allow for the probability of life? To simply say "We're here aren't we?" does not answer the question. Life as a state of matter may be too complex to have ever formed in our universe except during inflation. Should our early model universe prove to be true, inflation should have influenced the holographic state of the universe. The probability of life had to be there at inflation. What would that number be compared to the volume of the solar system? The information for the probability of life had to be there when inflation took place. It had to be part of the non diluting substance of inflation. What is the origin of the information that creates a state machine where the algorithm is executed over time? The matter and energy of each state of the machine converges on reality. That is what our substance seems to do. Rock, water, the sun, the universe converges on what we perceive as reality. The algorithm of life does not converge on the average state of matter until it is suspended. There is always a part of the algorithm superimposed on the current

state that generates the next and future state. Life contains a potential for

dynamic changes of information. It is a kind of clock or oscillator. It seems the midpoint between pure information and inorganic states of matter. Your computer is provided with low entropy power and a clock. The output is completely a part of the mathematical universe but the interpretation and my mind is the result of an algorithm. The fantasy in a game, movie or letters in a book exist only for us. Other forms of life have no idea what we are doing just as we stare in return. Nothing at all can't be measured. It can be hungry, naked, alone and afraid. Somewhere, Nothing at all does have a beginning and an end.

Here's a copy of an article I just submitted to vixra.org which happens to be very relevant to TEGMARK'S MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE -

title - USING SPACE TRAVEL, T TAURI STARS, E=mc^2 AND TERRESTRIAL HONEYBEES TO CONCLUDE THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM IS MODIFIED GRAVITY

author - Rodney Bartlett

abstract -

Starting with today's generation of rocket thrust by means of the energy-mass relation (as in chemical rockets or ion propulsion), this essay proposes thrust generation through the gravity-electromagnetism relationship (modifying string theory to explain G-EM). Then the statement "T Tauri stars don't generate energy through fusion but rather as a result of gravitational collapse" takes us to m=E/c^2, Einstein's E=mc^2 solved for mass. It also takes us to the concept that mass does not create gravity, but gravity produces mass as well as the other fundamental forces (this section includes Dark Energy and Dark Matter). The essay ends with "The paragraphs above show that the magnetic waves are actually modifications of gravitational waves. When they encounter the iron oxide in the bees, m=E/c^2 describes how the interacting forces/energies produce a tiny amount of what we call mass, causing the iron oxide to swell."

content -

THRUST

In discussing ion propulsion in which thrust is generated by escaping plasma, "rocketman" (Discover Magazine - May 2014) emphasized the relation of energy and mass. Another way of producing thrust is to emphasize the relation of gravity (G) and electromagnetism (EM). The relation of energy to mass is famously expressed by Einstein's famous formula E=mc^2: E (energy) equals m (mass) multiplied by c^2 (the velocity of light squared). The relation of gravity to electromagnetism can be expressed as G=EM/c^2*c^2.

A 2009 electrical-engineering experiment at America's Yale University by electrical engineer Hong Tang and his team demonstrated that, on silicon-chip and transistor scales, light can attract and repel itself like electric charges or magnets. This is the "optical force". For 30 years until his death in 1955, Albert Einstein worked on his Unified Field Theory with the aim of uniting electromagnetism (light is one form of this) and gravitation.

Gravity is the warping of space-time, and it's composed of gravitons at the quantum level. Uniting G and EM to achieve GEM means the microscopic components of space-time warps called gravitons could mimic the Optical Effect and be attracted together, thereby eliminating distance between spaceships and stars/galaxies (this is similar to traversing a wormhole between two folds in space). When Franklin Chang Diaz has finished work on the VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, he might like to design a spacecraft that works according to the Einstein-Yale principle.

STRINGS AND G-EM

Suppose electromagnetic photons consist of a particular series of 1s and 0s, while gravitational gravitons are made of a different sequence of 1s and 0s. This would help answer Einstein's 1951 question, "Fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering the question, what are light quanta (photons)?" (Discover Magazine - March 2014, p.31) It also suggests how, as Einstein believed, gravitation and electromagnetism may be related. Finally, it returns us to Professor Max Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe", and his suggestion that the physical world is one big mathematical object (the binary digits of 1 and 0 used in electronics comprise the base-2 form of maths).

String theory suggests everything's ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in four dimensions - "Workings of the Universe" by Time-Life Books (1991). We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a two-dimensional program called a Mobius loop - or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. Combination of the 2 loops' currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional Klein bottle (combining 2 Mobius loops in the right way does indeed form a Figure-8 Klein bottle). This connection can be made with the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons (force-carrying particles) being ultimately composed of the binary digits of 1 and 0 depicting pi, e, в€љ2 etc.; and fermions (matter particles) being given mass by bosons interacting in "wave packets" - into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles which are, in fact, "subuniverses" (we live in a 13.8 billion year old subuniverse). Union of space and time makes the infinite universe eternal - and binary digits fill in gaps and adjust edges of the Klein bottles to fit surrounding subuniverses (similar to manipulation of images by computers). Slight "imperfections" in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents (the producers of space-time, gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, the nuclear strong and weak forces) and thus of exact mass, charge and quantum spin.

T TAURI STARS AND m=E/c^2

"T Tauri stars don't generate energy through fusion but rather as a result of gravitational collapse" (Astronomy magazine - June 2013, p.73) and

"A T Tauri star is a stage in a star's formation and evolution right before it becomes a main sequence star. This phase occurs at the end of the protostar phase, when the gravitational pressure holding the star together is the source of all its energy. T Tauri stars don't have enough pressure and temperature at their cores to generate nuclear fusion ..." Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/24299/types-of-stars/#ixzz31ZZIW41U.

The highest speed possible is Lightspeed. Physically speaking, it cannot be multiplied. Einstein himself proved this. The equation E=mc^2 can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum. Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. The version of the equation applicable here may be E=m/c^2*c^2. Dividing by c^2 then multiplying by c^2 cancels, leaving E=m. That is, in this case, (gravitational) energy = (T Tauri) matter.

m = E/c^2 is E=mc^2 when the formula is solved for mass. E=mc^2 means a tiny amount of mass can be converted into a very large amount of energy. Similarly, m=E/c^2 means a very large amount of energy is converted into a tiny amount of mass. E (energy) is measured in joules (J), m is the mass in kilograms (kg; 1 kg = approx. 2.2 pounds), and c is the speed of light (about 186,282 miles/299,792.458 kilometres per second) measured in metres per second (m/s or ms^-1). According to "E=mc^2, Solving the Equation" (http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Equation.htm#.UrY7RdIW2bv), "So from 1kg of matter, any matter, we get 9 x 1016 joules of energy. Writing that out fully we get: 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules (enough to power a 100 watt lightbulb for 28,519,279 years). From gravitational energy equivalent to a 100 watt lightbulb burning for 28,519,279 years, only a kilogram of matter is formed.

GRAVITY FORMS MASS AND OTHER FUNDAMENTAL FORCES

(INCLUDES DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER)

If space-time (whose warping is gravity) forms mass, there could be "currents" of space-time flowing in the "oceans" between the galaxies. Space-time would form the matter in the galaxies, and it would form the Earth/objects on this planet. How? By some of the currents of space-time or gravity which pass the solar system's outer boundary being diverted towards the massive Sun's centre (just as some of the waves passing an island are refracted toward the shore by the island's mass). Along their course, the refracted gravitational waves are concentrated 10^24 times in the intense warping we call matter.

When gravity waves concentrate to form matter, gravity travels from external to matter: pushes against matter (repels). Repulsive gravity is dark energy*. Successive waves are re-radiated at unconcentrated** strength from matter to external (opposite action to repelling wave) and attract - it must be remembered that attraction is merely a matter of perspective, since Einstein showed that attraction of two bodies of matter actually results from space-time's curvature pushing bodies. Calculating time using imaginary numbers makes distinctions between time and space disappear. Hypothetical negative 5th-dimension is described by imaginary numbers and motions of its negative particles (dark matter) are time, since time can be calculated using imaginary numbers. So imaginary numbers eliminate distinctions between space-time and 5th dimension, permitting dark matter to exist as "ordinary" matter's scaffold.

* Feeble gravity might push galaxy clusters apart in the same way that feeble sunlight propels a solar sail. In the 1970s, Robert Forward proposed two beam-powered propulsion schemes using either lasers or masers to push giant sails to a significant fraction of the speed of light. These vastly magnify the power of sunlight via Light (or Microwave) Amplfication by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. How is gravity's power boosted? When Einstein penned E=mc^2, he used c (c^2) to convert between energy units and mass units. The conversion number is 90,000,000,000 (300,000 km/s x 300,000 km/s) which approx. equals 10^11. After gravity forms matter, successive gravity waves are, via gravitational lensing, concentrated 10^24 times (to 10^25, weak nuclear force's strength). Then they're further magnified by the matter's density to achieve electromagnetism's strength (10^36 times gravity's strength) i.e. 10^25 is multiplied by Einstein's conversion factor [10^11] and gives 10^36. Successive gravity waves are absorbed by the matter and radiated as longer-wavelength waves (both as electromagnetic waves - possibly gamma rays, or a microwave background - and as gravitational waves which have lost 10^24 of their energy or strength (and are labelled "10^1".) "If space comes from bits" (specifically, the energy responsible for the bits is converted into space), "then so does gravity (warping of space)." So as more and more energy is invested in bit production, more and more space and repelling gravity result. This causes accelerating expansion within the universe, as discovered in 1998 by Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess. (Suppose the unit ascribed to concentrated gravity's strength of 10^25 is the hertz (Hz), a frequency of one cycle per second. If a gamma ray is emitted from an atom, that typically accounts for more than 10^19 Hz of the 10^25 Hz. The remainder's accounted for by radiation of gravitational and other electromagnetic frequencies.)

** Or, possibly, at relatively unconcentrated strength (the number 10^1 in the paragraph above would refer to this relatively unconcentrated strength while a strength that's totally unconcentrated and not magnified at all could simply be termed "1"). The gravity waves from deep space would push Jupiter (for example) towards the Sun, while waves from the opposite direction push it away from the Sun. They'd thus cancel and maintain the planet's orbit (in the short term). Over billions of years, Einstein's paper ("Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure of the Elementary Particles?" - a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences) implies that planets gradually move farther away because gravity waves that first encounter the sun would help form the solar mass. They'd be diverted to the Sun's centre - during this journey, the increasing density would concentrate and magnify the gravitational waves. Therefore, they'd be more powerful when they emerge from the Sun's opposite side, and gradually push planets farther away (this happens whether planets are orbiting on one side of the sun or on its opposite side). According to "Celestial Mechanics & Dynamical Astronomy", Volume 90, Issue 3-4, pp. 267-288 by Krasinsky, G. A. and Brumberg, V. A., the distance between Sun and Earth is growing by approx. 15 centimetres per century.

BEES

"20 Things You Didn't Know About... Animal Senses" by Molly Loomis (Discover Magazine - May 2014) says, "Worker honeybees navigate using rings of paramagnetic iron oxide in their abdomens that swell or shrink depending on outside magnetic changes, allowing the insects to find their way home by following changes in the Earth's magnetic fields." As the Chesterfield and District Beekeepers Association says at http://www.cdbka.org.uk/index.php/bee-keeping/47-members-beekeeping-questions/111-question-no-5-from-d-h-14-10-2012,"The researchers have found that in a bee, these miniature paramagnetic particles are of natural iron oxide and are aligned either side by side or end to end; and are attached to their respective parent cell walls in the bees' abdomen. As the bee flies around, these cells are affected by the earths' magnetic field due to the bees' position/relationship to the said magnetic field. These particles either swell or shrink and make subtle changes to the shape of the cells themselves. There are nerves attached to these cells and these cells act like miniature compasses, constantly sending information to the bees' brain identifying its current position."

The paragraphs above show that the magnetic waves are actually modifications of gravitational waves. When they encounter the iron oxide in the bees, m=E/c^2 describes how the interacting forces/energies produce a tiny amount of what we call mass, causing the iron oxide to swell.