Tegmark's Mathematical Universe

[deleted]

Dear Lawrence,

El Naschie's E-Infinity has an order of 685.4~(26.18)^2, which is remarkably close to the K12' order of 684 that I've been playing with, and it contains the golden ratio 2.618=1.618^2 that is currently a hot topic. He and I shared some ideas a year-and-a-half ago.

My interpretation is that K12' is the first "Wigner-Seitz" primitive cell of a finite-sized lattice. If we take the limit towards an infinite lattice (in all directions) then we may need to also include fractal-sized contributions, and this may explain the differences between my discrete geometrical ideas with K12'=684 and his fractal geometrical ideas with E-Infinity=685.4.

Unfortunately, El Naschie is occupied in the lawsuit with Nature, his publications have drawn considerable critism recently, and I have been ignored by arXiv probably because of my associations with El Naschie and Lisi.

The occurance of the golden ratio 1.618 requires pentagons (I addressed this in more detail on my blog site), but does not require fractals. This is part of why I keep looking at the Carbon-60 buckyball.

Have Fun!

Ray

Edwin Klingman

Dear Physicists,

As I understand Lisi's E8 paper, he has 20 'holes' that seem to imply new particles. I claim that new particles are relevant to any search for a correct theory of physics. Since our essays were written in October 09, there have been about 12 issues of Physical Review Letters published which report on the continuing search for 'new physics'. The result is: Nothing New, but tighter constraints have been established. Of course the LHC has not yet come online, but I do wish to point out that prediction is far better than post-diction, and also to point out that my theory predicts that No New Particles will be found, Nada, Nil, Nothing. This is not based on a 'safe bet' or 'contrarian' approach. The reason for this prediction is that my theory explains ALL of the currently known particles and appears to have no mechanism for producing new fundamental particles. (The explanation for all current particles is laid out in "The Chromodynamics War".)

This means no Higgs, no axions, no right handed neutrinos, no SUSY, no WIMPs, no extra dimensions... ALL of the known particles come from my treatment of the primordial field that I assume as basic. I believe that Marcel-Marie LeBel offers a well reasoned argument for such an approach (although I differ from his interpretation of the character of this field.)

I would hope that the purveyors of other theories would clearly and distinctly state just what predictions they make. After all, it really won't be long before the LHC tells us who is correct. I believe that everyone pushing a theory should predict now, not wait until the results are known, and then attempt to 'match' these. The fact that mathematics is, for all practical purposes, infinite, says that we can always match what we know to be true. This is what Fermi meant by his 'elephant' analogy.

I can understand the excitement of new mathematical formulations, especially if one takes seriously Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis (I don't), but to a relatively unbiased observer the conversations on this thread appear to be wild thrashing and flailing, looking here, looking there, for the magic bullet that will capture "reality". Unless one has a theory that predicts what this reality will look like, what's the point? This is not to criticize those who merely find joy in exotic mathematics, but it is to ask what, as physicists, is the measure of success. If predictions no longer have significance, what does?

I hope it's not considered to be in poor taste to point out that predictions are still important in physics, and to ask physicists to state their predictions while they are still "pre"-dictions.

It's fun to state predictions, try it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

There are some problems with the basic E_8 theory of Lisi. One of them is that he frames the graviton with other fields in a way which is in conflict with the Coleman-Mandula theorem. The other is there are some triality conditions he imposes which are not mathematically justified. The idea is bold and as a first attempt worth its effort. I will say that the theory lacks supersymmetry, which is a consequence of the C-M violation.

Axions are a CP violating particle associated with QCD. It has been a question as to why weak intereactions have CP violations and not QCD. I am not commmitted to the idea of the axion, but there are some reasons to suppose they might exist.

Ray,

I am still not sure about E_infinity, but this seems to suggest some sort of generalization of Bott periodicity. Maybe the Bott periodicity computes the continued fraction for the golden ratio.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Dear Edwin,

You claim that your theory "explains ALL of the currently known particles and appears to have no mechanism for producing new fundamental particles.".

Now this is a bold claim, and I took a closer look at your essay entry (assuming that this is the theory you are talking about).

On page 8 you state: "The key equations (with constants suppressed) are..." and list 4+4 equations. Now the 4 G+C equations are inconsistent.

Take curl C = dm/dt +dG/dt and div G = -m

Apply div on first equation and you get an incorrect "continuity equation" where mass is not conserved. If however the first equation is div G = +m, continuity is restored.

Now take divG = -m (or +m) and curlG = 0. It is easy to get Poisson's equation for G with m as a source. All OK, but this is just like electrostatics and violates special relativity (just as Newtonian gravity does) because any change in the position of mass would have to be propagated with infinite velocity to the rest of the universe.

You also attack Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. If I understood your argument correctly, it is: map is different than territory. In other words, marks on paper describing reality are not reality itself. I do not disagree with this, and I suspect neither does Tegmark.

First, math does exist outside space and time. The fact that the sum of the angles in a flat triangle is 180 is true now, was true in ancient Greece, and was true at the moment of Big Bang. Mathematical results are only waiting for mathematicians to discover them, but they do exist independent from our reality.

Then you ask: "How will Tegmark demonstrate that physical reality arises from (is) math?" Now this is a question for Tegmark, and I cannot answer it. What I can do however is present how I answer this myself in a slightly different setting, which is do not look for similarities between math and reality (like Tegmark), but look at the differences.

Regards,

Florin

[deleted]

Dear Lawrence,

Bott periodicity with fractal sphere packing may be the key. I suggested something similar to this to Steve Dufourny nearly a year ago, but he didn't consider it 'foundational' enough.

I'm not trying to prove El Naschie's ideas at this point. I'm trying to discover how spacetime connects with hyperspace and supersymmetry. But it would be interesting if a minor calculation could convert my discrete geometrical K12' into El Naschie's fractal geometrical E-Infinity.

Have Fun!

Ray

[deleted]

Dear Florin,

Thank you for investing the effort in my essay required for your above response.

These are of course vector equations and I have written them symbolically to emphasize the dependence on mass m and charge q. Unfortunately, my discussion of the symbolism was deleted due to the ten-page limit. I actually considered this problem but then decided that it would be evident from the analogous Maxwell's equation. That is, knowing that the curl B = j = qv implies curl C = j = mv. In fact, the 'standard' equation is in the middle of page 4:

curl C = p plus dG/dt

You'll find that if you apply div to both sides you do get continuity (for either sign).

Your next point is that any change in the position of mass would have to be propagated with infinite velocity to the rest of the universe.

By the above equation, any change in position of mass will induce a local C-field circulation.

We now have a moving mass, a circulating C-field, and a change in the gravitational field, as described by the equation on page 4. Because the fields interact with the moving mass and with their own mass, the situation is more complex than electro-magnetics. Although the equations look the same, the mass fields are Yang-Mills and hence non-linear. Tajmar's experiment shows that the C-field dipole does not fall off as quickly as the analogous magnetic dipole, and a Lenz-law argument can be made that this implies curl G = 0. (Other arguments imply the same result.)

At the nuclear level, where the C-field has its greatest effect, the non-linearity rules, while at greater distances, such as those involved in entanglement, I am still analyzing the situation. There are grounds for believing that the C-field is super-luminal, but I haven't convinced myself yet. Entanglement experiments may answer this question.

In the 'linear' regions the formal similarity to Maxwell's equations provide very useful qualitative analogies. In the 'non-linear' regions, the Yang-Mills effects provide the behaviors desired for particle physics. Ray Munroe is in process of reading the detailed particle physics analysis. If you are interested, I would be more than happy to send you a copy. Or you may wish to wait for Ray's opinion. Whatever you like.

As I state in my Tegmark remarks. To claim that math does exist outside time and space is essentially a religious statement. Replacing math with God is just as provable. Some people believe God exists, some don't.

You believe math exists outside time and space. I don't. I don't believe there's a 'pi in the sky' nor do I believe that there's '180 deg in the sky'. When you create a triangle -- in the sand, or in your brain -- then the angles always seem to be (approximately) 180 deg. When there's no sand and no brain, I don't conceive of there being 180 degrees. It's meaningless to me. It seems to mean more to you. I don't need it in my world model, so I Occam's razor it away. It's not missed. I don't argue with people who claim God created the universe, nor do I argue with those who claim math created the universe, unless they call it physics.

You believe that mathematicians discover math. I believe they create/invent it. The relations that led to math are obviously those in the physical world, and I agree with Marcel-Marie LeBel that the physical world is logically self-consistent, which "allows" us to build real physical systems that instantiate logic. Such circuits can create integers and we're off and running.

Tegmark begins with Wigner's statement concerning "the unreasonable effectiveness of math". In 1979 I began my dissertation with the same quote, and the goal was to 'answer' or 'solve' this problem. I did then and am about to republish the dissertation as "The Automatic Theory of Physics".

After the mind develops the logico-mathematical 1, 2, 3, and 4 dimensional concepts and techniques, it's easy to extend this to Hilbert space, etc. Also to create non-physical constructions, such as Klein bottles.

I have read several times your statement about looking for the differences. Based on what I've said above, I'm not sure it makes any sense, but I will continue to try to understand what you're saying.

Edwin Klingman

Florin,

I turn my back on my computer and it takes my name away...

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Dear Edwin,

Continuity equation for electromagnetism is: partial rho/partial t + div J = 0

From your equation curl C = dm/dt + dG/dt take the div and get div dm/dt + d div G/dt = 0 Combined with divG = -m and calling dm/dt = J you get

div J - dm/dt =0 with a wrong minus sign. To fix continuity you need:

curl C = dm/dt - dG/dt if div G = -m. The other option is to keep the curl C equation, but change div G equation into: divG = +m. Now the second case corresponds to repulsive gravity, and the right way to fix the equation is curl C = dm/dt - dG/dt while keeping div G = -m. (last time I gave you the wrong advice on which equation to change)

About the instantaneous change, yes, C evolves and it is affected by G, but your equations are decoupled and G depends only on m, just like in Newtonian gravity. The criticism was about G, not C.

About mathematics, you state: "You believe that mathematicians discover math. I believe they create/invent it." Then here is a simple question: was Pythagoras theorem valid before Pythagoras? Or was 1+1 not equal with 2 before humans discovered it? Mathematics is an abstraction, which by its very meaning means that it does not depend on its representation, be it for example marks on paper in Chinese, German, or English. As such it exists outside space and time, it is timeless. Compute e = 1+1/1! + 1/2! + 1/3! +... on a PC or on a Mac, here or on Mars, in this universe or in another universe. The answer is the same regardless of its representation. Nobody invented e or pi, the mathematicians only became aware of their properties.

Now consider the unreasonable effectiveness of math in physics and the "why those equations" questions.

Can we find an answer rooted only in mathematics? No, because mathematics is abstract and one cannot write the equations of our universe on paper, say fly and a new universe will form. We have to distinguish between the map and the territory.

Can we find an answer rooted only in nature? No again, because this is only a circular explanation: it is this because it is this and we see it in experiments.

Do we have another option? Yes. Compare mathematical properties of nature which are universally valid in nature, but not universally valid in the world of abstract mathematics. I have found 3: truth, composability, infinite complexity. Now select from the infinite world of abstract mathematics those and only those structures which satisfy those 3 principles. The answer is (so far): quantum mechanics, space time in 3+1 dimensions, electroweak symmetry. So here is an answer to "why those equations?". I hope more will follow. Is this math based? Yes, the consequences are pure mathematical theorems. Is this reality based? Yes, the 3 principles have to pass all past, present, and future experiments. What we have is in fact a recipe for axiomatizing physics.

Regards,

Florin

Edwin Klingman

Dear Florin,

Your electromagnetism continuity equation is of course correct. My last post indicated that the appropriate 'mass current' is j = p = mv = mdr/dt and so

div p = m div v = m div dr/dt = m d(div r)/dt = m d(3)/dt = 0

which is correct for a 'perfect fluid', hence dm/dt = 0 is the correct continuity equation.

My essay assumes that the Master equation applies to the whole universe, and hence ideally will represent both cosmological and sub-nuclear realms. It is typical to use perfect fluids in cosmology, and the recent RHIC results show a 'perfect fluid' (instead of the QCD-predicted 'weak quark gas') so that I believe that this is the appropriate assumption to make. In reviewing my essay I find that I did not have room for the tensor formulations, but I feel that the Maxwell equations formulation is the most 'intuitive' as far as drawing analogies between the electromagnetic equations and the Yang-Mills mass-based formulation.

Recall that Einstein attempted to solve for the "C-field dipole" in General Relativity, but was unable to. So I must say that I depend more upon intuition and special case solutions than claiming that I have solved ALL of the equations in ALL of the realms of the physical universe. Nevertheless, these equations are, I believe, correct and lead to both significant explanations and predictions.

Note that in typical applications, cosmological or sub-nuclear, only one of the terms on the right applies. For example, the dG/dt term has little significance for elementary particle problems.

Since I've spent the last year working on particle physics problems, I have not had recent occasion to use the dG/dt term and have ignored its sign. If you are still bothered, I will go back to the cosmology work and reconfirm the sign.

My approach differs from many here. I believe that the last century has developed reasonable tools and techniques for treating particles as 'points' with source and detector at 'infinite' distances. This has been useful for discovering both the particles of which our world is built and the way these 'point' particles interact. But the cost of this has been a mathematical nightmare, and today physicists are completely confused, as will be seen to be the case when the Higgs fails to show at LHC. But today we know the basic particles, and I believe that it is appropriate to "physically" understand the particles and their interactions. My theory does this, at the same time explaining numerous current mysteries (that I've listed).

Florin, it is not a question of whether the Pythagorean theorem was true before Pythagoras. It is a question whether the Pythagorean theorem was true before the physical universe existed, at which point it would be "outside time and space". I claim not. The relationships existing in the physical world ARE reality. Once man's brain is capable of abstracting these relationships, they become mathematics. It is the central thesis of my essay that the universe does not "obey" the 'laws of physics'. The universe ACTS and interacts with itself, hence the Master equation. From observations of these actions and interactions we derive the 'laws of physics'. My 1979 "Automatic Theory of Physics" and the April 2009 Science publication of "Automating Physics" in both of which a robot derives valid laws of physics from visual observations demonstrates how laws can be automatically generated.

Thus it's probably valid to state that man "discovers" some of these relationships (by measuring circumference/diameter) and "invents" other math, such as calculus. But the reality is a physical universe, interacting with itself to evolve its current state and instantiating relationships that underlie math..It is the physical relationships that underlie math, not math that underlies physics.

What does it mean to say 1 plus 1 = 2 if there is no universe? It means absolutely nothing to me. The words form a grammatically correct sentence but the concept is nonsense (to me).

Yes, e has an expansion, but e is also the relational basis of natural growth, and that is the physical reality (or at least one physical reality).that makes e 'real'. Once the limiting process was "invented", then a number of fascinating relations were "discovered" but neither e nor the expansion has any meaning if there is no universe.

I do see how you can 'believe' that math exists when no universe exists, just as many believe that God exists when no universe exists. But neither is provable, and the case for math makes no sense to me, nor appears necessary for my theory. Marcel-Marie LeBel's argument leading to a monistic universe is my starting point, and I reject dualism which is the minimum that Platonic ideas require. Because I can physically derive logic circuits and counters and other math circuits in silicon, and exhibit protein and neural equivalent circuits, I can physically construct every mathematical structure that is computable, and I do not worry about the rest.

I do however begin to see what you are talking about with 'differences' as the basis for axiomatizing physics. It is not clear to me why the existence of mathematics "outside time and space" is necessary for your approach to be correct. Why do you think it is?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Ray,

The fractal structure is not due to how spheres pack into unit cells, but how the cells tessellate the space or spacetime. A hyperbolic space may be tessellated by dodecahedra, and in four dimensions by dodecahechoria (120/600 cells). The fractal structure comes from the geodesics in this space. They have a self-similar branching pattern given by a modular function. The self-similar or repeated pattern of branching paths is a fractal, and the Laplace-Beltrami operator in the two dimensional version, the Poincare disk, has a chaotic dynamical interpretation.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

wawww ,in fact maths or physics ,I am deseperated ,I think never The mathematicians shall change their points of vue .

In all case ,your discussions on this thread are very relevants about this foundamental problem in fact .

We see just differently afetr all ,but hihihi the physicians are right hahaha

the war against mathematicians ,hihihi afetr star wars ,maths wars ,

A nice war ,it is the most important .Let's go the physicisians ,the hour is serious hihihi

Laugh is good for health after all .

Take care dear friends ,mathematicians or physicians

Steve

[deleted]

Dear Edwin,

One can imagine a recursive ontology structure: our reality contains a PC with a simulated reality and inside there is another PC with yet another simulated reality ad infinitum. This is possible because a universal Turing machine can simulate another universal Turing machine. Moreover, the "laws of reality" at each level could be different. Math is valid in each of those ontology, and according to your argument, (an) ontology is required to be able to speak meaningful about mathematical theorems. But which ontology? Any higher level ontology will do the job, and therefore there is no 1-to-1 correspondence required between math and reality. Applying Occam's razor, no ontology is really needed to have valid math theorems. Ontology is required only for the existence of mathematicians, but not for the existence of the Platonic world of math. (This is like sqrt(2): a limit which requires an approximation series, but ultimately independent on it.)

The second point I want to make is that reality is made out of relational structures. If one forbids the supernatural and metaphysical, then reality is fully comprehensible and this means there is a dualism between reality and math, each one completely describing the other.

So how is reality made out of relational structures? One may think the universe is a giant mathematical theorem (Tegmark's approach), but this runs into contradiction with Gödel's theorem. He circumvents the problem by requiring reality to be computable, but this goes against the observed infinite complexity of reality and against free will. I say that our universe is made out of many mathematical relationships, some playing a backbone role (like quantum mechanics and relativity), others only a limited role. Please see my essay: "Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization."

Regards,

Florin

Edwin Klingman

Dear Florin,

I agree that one can imagine a recursive ontology. And if one has no sense of the real, then one might as well do so.

As I state in my essay, I sense gravity and I sense consciousness. I do not sense dozens of quantum fields nor do I sense a recursive computer.

Many people report states of consciously being "one with the universe". Last year a book, "My Stroke of Insight" described a neuro-anatomist's personal experience of a stroke, from which it took her eight years to recover. She, like many mystics throughout history, and many who have experienced LSD, report a 'merger' with the universe, as the mental boundaries dissolve. Several times in my life I have experienced this state of awareness, in which reality is experienced as a seamless perfect fluid with no boundaries, existing in the external NOW. It is not a state that is useful for achieving our daily tasks and surviving in a complex environment, but it is an ontological challenge of the first order. Therefore, I do not go in search of what I can imagine, rather I search for understanding of reality as I experience it. This seems to me to be the most ontologically productive approach. In the 1970s I developed computer design expertise to answer the question of how a robot (computer) can derive "laws of physics" from counters, adders, and logic. The computer does not 'understand' the laws, but it nevertheless derives them from observations. This approach, beginning only with physical hardware, and based on visual observations of dynamic systems, creates the 'description of behavior' that we know as the 'laws of physics'.

Next, I asked how, from a monistic, NOT a dualistic,universe these laws could come to be. My essay outlines the answer, based on thousands of pages of detail (referenced in the essay).

Having spent decades trying to 'figure out' consciousness, and giving others a chance to figure it out, I arrived at the conclusion that consciousness is an innate characteristic of the universe. It is NOT something that 'emerges' from structure. Math emerges from structure! Consciousness has been here since the beginning (and perhaps before?).

No one else has explained consciousness. FQXi member David Chalmers is close, in that he believes it is a 'dualistic' phenomena that exists essentially in parallel with the physical universe, but that is as far as he goes. He's quite famous for just going that far.

You state that no ontology is needed for having valid math theorems. I believe that you are basing that on your recursive proposal.

I reject all ideas based on multiple universes, multiple layers of recursion, multiple dimensions, etc. I've analyzed what I believe is the driving force behind these approaches elsewhere.

In my ontology ONE perfect universe that presents me, a local conscious maximum, with everything from particle physics to cosmology, with humanity in between, is so far beyond any 'multiple' idea that I wonder why people look there.

My sincere hope is that the failure to find the Higgs will make new physicists, those not yet so heavily invested in the Standard Model, look for an integral approach that makes sense. It exists.

Carl Sagan used to go on about 'big numbers'. Big numbers mean nothing to me. Unity and a unitary explanation are my holy grail. Another equation, another field, another particle, another dimension, another universe adds no value that I can see. There is originally ONE, and interacting with itself, there may come to exist a limit or dividing line that brings TWO into existence, and Peano's axiom takes care of the rest (figuratively speaking).

As for your comment that "reality is made out of relational structures", I agree, with the caveat that these derive from the unitary physical universe. But I do not agree that there is a dualism between reality and math, each completely describing the other. Math does not completely describe either awareness or free will. Math only describes the *interaction* of the consciousness field (awareness plus volition) with mass. Moving mass induces a circulation in the local consciousness field, and the local consciousness field exerts a Lorentz-like force on moving mass, as explained in my essay. But the conscious awareness and conscious volition (free will) are NOT completely described by mathematics, which is why Tegmark denied 'randomness' and ignored consciousness (with implied free will). Either destroys his basic premise.

Florin I read your essay twice or more in October and just printed it out to read again, because it is presently not clear to me why you must have the dualism in order to axiomatize physics. You may also wish to read the comments on my thread, some of which extend the remarks I've made above.

I very much enjoy this back and forth. Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Dear Florin,

your approach to describe/explain reality is interesting and worth (in my opinion) to be examined further. I am sure your approach will gain some of the higher prices here in the contest (in my opinion), but nonetheless, i have some critics about your lines of thought.

Firstly, the assumption of a recursive simulation of reality, where each instant of the recursive whole is equipped maybe with different physical laws, but with the same maths/logical relations, presupposes maths as the ultimate reality of it all. This is not only a recursive "simulation"-argument, but literally a recursive argument in the sense of a circular argument. Because it presupposes to know exactly, what ultimate reality is - namely the platonic realm of maths - and then puts a part of this maths into a PC. This argument is then repeated at every instant of this recursive "simulation" and i doubt that it is more than a thought-simulation, a Gedankenexperiment.

Secondly, the implicite assumption of the whole Gedankenexperiment is, that an exclusively mathematical procedure can prove the exclusiveness of mathematics.

Not only this line of reasoning is suspect to me once more, not only because of its obviously recursive, circular argumentation, but also because it presupposes each and every world that is thinkable to be a universal turing machine (here the circle closes by identifying maths + infinity = universal turing machine).

Thirdly, i assume that the whole argument breaks down, if one would eliminate "infinite complexity", means the component that makes your simulation linearly infinite (ad infinitum, you would say). Surely, in none of the simulated worlds must exist some sort of conscious beings. As you stated above, it needs a free space for "free will" (whatever it embraces) and hence for consciousness. I think your assumption of the "observed infinite complexity of reality" that you stated above is once more a circular argumentation, because no one has yet proved this infinite complexity in nature. Once more, in this context the concept of infinity seems to only be a free space, a spaceholder for unknown things (our search for ultimate reality) - and a circular argument to reinforce the infinite simulation of realities - in the sense of mathematical infinite complexity in a platonic realm. Maths may be infinite complex, but i doubt that nature is so, too. At least not in a mechanical, mathematical sense. But if not in this mathematical sense, then there is no reason to assume that reality and maths can completely describe each other.

The "result" of sqrt(2) may be infinite, or at least the procedure to calculate it may be infinite. If all physical constants would be infinite, the whole argument would break down because a simulation of reality on a PC with infinite physical values is only traceable in imagination - not in time. Therefore a world with time in it cannot be produced out of such a procedure. Your claim is that our world is the only world, the exclusive result of infinitely many mathematical relations which only allow one ontology to come into existence - ours. So the question which of the infinitely many "simulated" realities can serve as an ontology, is answered circularly by the person who constructed these lines of reasoning. Yes, i know, the latter can't be otherwise - but those lines of reasoning are nonetheless circular because they exclude all other possibilities (possibilities that ALSO can be imagined) for the aim of the exclusiveness of maths.

Fourthly, assuming that your considerations are the truth and reality is a "recursive ontology structure" (i think it is so and i will make my remarks to that later), then the next circular argument that is tacitly interwoven into your structure of thoughts is following: To overcome the problem that in any exclusively mathematical system there is no room for a proof of non-mathematical ingredients, you try to prove exactly this by inventing the "recursive ontology structure", based on mere mathematical observations of the non-denumerable infinity that can serve as argument that there is no 1-to-1 correspondence required between math and reality.

What you have done is to justify the - obviously true - observation of consciousness, free will, the existence of mathematicians etc. by substituing these "non-mathematical" ingredients by "non-denumerable" ingredients/ontology. That is indeed a "recursive ontology structure". The question is, does this structure only exist in your imagination or is it indeed the truth? My assumption is that you are somewhat right with your claim that there could exist such a recursive ontology strucure.

I assume that the "ontology"-part of this structure is consciousness, the recursivity is self-consciousness and reflection (not only in a logical sense, but also in an emotional sense) and the fact that it is structured in such a recursive way is that it is able to quasi-differentiate itself continuosly on the basis of the ability to pass "duality" on to every instant of this differenciation-process (because the "mechanism" for this division is simple and universal: 1:2 = 1+1 = conserving the form, not the content, because on the right hand side of the equation every "1" is again 1:2; you can read it from right to left, there's not time-direction in it). Duality in this sense means nothing more than each side of this duality describes the other side. "Desribing" also in the meaning of defining. Without this process, there aren't definitions possible. What would remain seems to us as an undefined "thing", not able to percept itself or something else. But that could only be a consequence of duality, our left side of the brain. Because when we percept something, we almost always differentiate something logically. In my opinion logics/maths comes from a timeless/spaceless consciousness, not comparable to human consciousness, but nonetheless vital.

The reason for the overwhelming consistence in nature and logics has its roots in the exact self-similarity of the described differentiation-process. Connectivity is only possible if the parts aren't really separated from each other and i assume that the reason for all this is that the above described formal procedure with which the quasi-differentiation works is conserved under every instant of the whole process. We cannot think rationally without opposites, and therefore all opposites/logics/maths has to form out of the same source.

[deleted]

You can sense the other gauge fields. The visual experience of light is the EM field. The weak and nuclear forces are not as directly experienced, though some people did live to tell about in Hiroshima and Nagasaki --- one man who died recently experienced both! Other ways to experience the EM field, or its source is to put a (v battery to your tongue. If that is not enough I always thought urinating on a wall socket would be adventurous.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Years ago, we had a Dalmation that urinated on the electric fence. That was one stupid dog. My two rescue-shelter mutts are much more intelligent.

Dear Ed,

I know that Florin brought up some mathematical questions regarding your essay. I did not double-check your math. If Florin thinks he sees something wrong, then you should double-check it. What I liked about your ideas was that you tried to model these fields of Consciousness and Gravity. I used your paper as an example of what the physics community expects of Frank (who has no math or concrete modeling in his writings). If your fundamental idea is robust enough, then you should be able to 'tweak' the math to make everything work correctly.

Regarding 'Big Numbers', I don't make such a big deal about "Billions and Billions of stars" (I met Sagan back in the early 90's), but I do think that Dirac's Large Number - the relationship between 10^40 vs. electromagnetic to gravitational couplings vs. size of Universe to size of atom - is relevant mathematical physics that is not yet fully understood.

Have Fun!

Ray

Edwin Klingman

Dear Lawrence,

I mention in my essay that we sense at least a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Those of us with sight experience colors and shades. Almost everyone experiences infrared on their skin. For this reason the electromagnetic equations are included in my theory, and the mechanism whereby charge and these fields come into being is explained.

While certainly the atomic radiation 'happened to' some humans (as it does when one has an x-ray or MRI scan), nevertheless one does not 'experience' it in the sense that I refer to.

The C-field appears to accomplish everything that the 'weak' and 'strong' forces are believed to do, so they may be a false map. The failure of the Higgs to appear will further call these into question.

I recall someone in high school being talked into urinating on the spark plug of a running jeep, and yes, he did 'experience' electromagnetic phenomena directly.

In my theory the electro-magnetic fields are 'derived' and hence secondary in some sense. They do not exist 'at the creation' but come into existence only after the perfect radial symmetry is broken.

So although we do experience various EM phenomena, gravity and consciousness are sensed in a wholly unique manner that I believe must be somehow represented in any 'theory of everything' worth the name.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

Ray,

I told Florin that if he still had a problem, after my last explanation, that I would reconfirm the sign of dG/dt in the cosmology work I've done. He did not say that he still had a problem, so I assumed it was now considered ok. The equations are derivable from linearized General Relativity. It is only the curl G = 0 and the kappa constant that I add to the equations. The kappa value was worked out by me and measured by Tajmar, and seems to be real. The curl G condition also seems to be supported somewhat by Tajmar's results (although that's not quite as certain as the kappa is.)

As for 'large numbers', there are almost infinite numbers to play with, so that, in my view, there simply *must* be coincidences similar to Dirac's observation. I don't think it's very significant, but of course I could be wrong. I see no reason that the sizes of atoms and universes should have the same ratio as forces. In 'Chromo War' I explain the particle size, and the size of the universe seems to change over time.

[deleted]

Dear Ed,

I too enjoy this back and forth, and I wish I had more time than once a day to reply. About consciousness, I am not an expert in this area, and I cannot offer any meaningful comments.

You state: "I reject all ideas based on multiple universes, multiple layers of recursion, multiple dimensions, etc."

About multiple universes, you need to answer the following question: why is our universe is happening only once? We know that different epochs in the history of our universe are vastly different and we also noticed that it is nothing special about us: Earth is not the center of the solar system, our sun is not the center of our galaxy, etc, etc. This is the (generalized) Copernican principle. If true, why is our "unique universe history" so special?

I also (for now) reject multiple dimensions, but the math behind it is solid and should not be dismissed easily.

"My sincere hope is that the failure to find the Higgs will make new physicists, those not yet so heavily invested in the Standard Model, look for an integral approach that makes sense. It exists."

Higgs physics is not at all clear, there are many possible alternatives. Not finding Higgs will continue to keep us in the dark. Only a positive detection can narrow the possibilities.

"Math does not completely describe either awareness or free will."

Now this is partially wrong. I do not know about awareness, but I do know about free will. In fact free will is equivalent with the ability to decide what to measure in quantum mechanics. There is even a "free will theorem" in QM. In classical mechanics there is no free will. QM allows for free will because the dimensionality of a composite Hilbert space made out of 2 separate Hilbert spaces is larger than the sum of their original dimensionality (see Segre embedding). This allows for entanglement and freedom of measurement (measurement is nothing but the entanglement of the system with the measuring device).

For the math-reality duality I recommend reading "G. McCabe, The duality of the Universe arXiv:0805.3664 (2008)." and the references therein. The read is a bit too technical, but the gist goes like this: We can discover math, and therefore the information content of math is already part of our reality. In reverse, our reality is made only out of mathematical relationships and math completely describes reality. Now this is all just a big assumption and McCabe and Tegmark are trying to find consequences out of it. The route McCabe is taking is representation and category theory in math. This may lead somewhere, but category theory is not yet as developed as set theory to act as the complete foundation of math. Set theory is relatively more intuitive, but is directly at odds with QM. Therefore the road of finding similarities between math and reality is very hard. In contrast, the approach of investigating the differences is much easier and much more fruitful.

Thanks,

Florin

PS: I did not realize you were waiting on another comment about your equations. My criticism still stand: one sign in wrong, and one component have instantaneous change because in fact your equation is just the old fashion Newtonian theory of gravity.

[deleted]

Dear Stefan,

Thank you for your kind words, we'll see the outcome on Tuesday.

You state:

"Firstly, the assumption of a recursive simulation of reality, where each instant of the recursive whole is equipped maybe with different physical laws, but with the same maths/logical relations, presupposes maths as the ultimate reality of it all. This is not only a recursive "simulation"-argument, but literally a recursive argument in the sense of a circular argument. Because it presupposes to know exactly, what ultimate reality is - namely the platonic realm of maths - and then puts a part of this maths into a PC. This argument is then repeated at every instant of this recursive "simulation" and i doubt that it is more than a thought-simulation, a Gedankenexperiment."

You are absolutely right, this is nothing but a simple thought experiment to prove that ontology is not needed for the existence of the Platonic world of math. Therefore you do not need to read too much into it. Maybe another way of putting it is in the language of computer science, in the C++ language for example. In C++ one has classes and their instances. The program exists independently of its instance being executed on a computer. In C++ there are even virtual classes which are never instantiated to anything.

You also say: "Secondly, the implicite assumption of the whole Gedankenexperiment is, that an exclusively mathematical procedure can prove the exclusiveness of mathematics."

Indeed this is true as well. I do eliminate the metaphysical and supernatural, and what is left? Only mathematics.

"I think your assumption of the "observed infinite complexity of reality" that you stated above is once more a circular argumentation, because no one has yet proved this infinite complexity in nature."

Now this is wrong (as in a mathematically way wrong). Jochen Rau has proved that infinite complexity demands orthogonal groups SO(p,q). The proof is rather complex and uses advanced differential geometry and Lie group theory.

"My assumption is that you are somewhat right with your claim that there could exist such a recursive ontology strucure."

The proposed recursive ontology is based on the mathematical fact that a universal Turing machine can simulate another universal Turing machine.

I cannot offer any meaningful comments about consciousness, but my gut feeling it is that it is not relevant to physics. Our universe existed well before humans, and consciousness is an emergent property. The way we do physics today is still rooted into looking to breaking up the whole in individual pieces (see the accelerator experiments), and not on emergent complexity from simple rules.

"The reason for the overwhelming consistence in nature and logics has its roots in the exact self-similarity of the described differentiation-process."

Bingo. See the composability principle. There are only three possible self-similarity composability classes: elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic. We know what the first 2 correspond to (QM and classical mechanics). It is not clear what the third class corresponds to in nature (hyperbolic QM). It is not occurring in our universe, but it may play a role in a hypothetical multiverse reality.

Florin

« Previous Page Next Page »