• Blog

  • The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

The fact that physicists need to represent the real world with equations (representing law of nature relationships), categories (like mass or position), and numbers (that apply to the categories) means that the real world does indeed have relationship-like, category-like and number-like aspects.

But the fact that moving systems need to be represented with logical connective symbols like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN, in addition to the symbols for relationships, categories and numbers, means that, in order to be a moving system, the real world does indeed need to have logical connective aspects.

Out of all the abovementioned real-world aspects, only the real-world categories are potentially measurable. Numbers are the result of measurement, and relationships and logical connectives have to be inferred.

Some logical connective symbols (like AND, OR, and IS TRUE) represent knowledge aspects of a moving system, and other logical connective symbols (like IF and THEN) represent creative/ free will aspects of a moving system.

And note that, while they can both be thought of as "moving the numbers", the logical connective creative aspects of a moving system are entirely different to the relationship aspects of a moving system.

The knowledge aspects of the real-world moving system, and the creative aspects of the real-world moving system, can’t be explained. But the relationship, category and number aspects can potentially be explained as being a product of the creative aspects of the real-world system.

    Lorraine Ford Hi, You d like a lot the book of Bob Coecke , quantum in pictures, I discussed with him on facebook and he beleives strongly that the relations are important between the systems. His book is more than relevant you know. He has sent me it in Finland. This Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is a relevant idea for the interpretations of our QM because it tells mainly that the relation between the observer and the system give this relation of the quantum state. So the categories and numbers are important ..... I see many convergences with the ideas of Wheeler about the quantum informations. It seems evident that the most important is the relations between the objects , that could permit to better understand these quantum objects and their nature and philosophical origin in trying different mathematical partitions. If this QM is a theory about the physial description of physial systems, so these relations to others systems seem essential for a better understanding of this world.

    What I find important is that different observers give different analysis about the exact same system, it is mainly about the states and is essential because is relative to the observer. It is about the state vector, that is why there are relevances with the geometrial algebras, It is what I try to to with the spherical geometrical topological algebras, the tool that I have invented , and in trying to consider the degrees of freedom in the observations and in trying to apply the quantum , cosmological and our dimension scales. This observer dependence now becomes relevant about the consciousness and so these observations. So what is the rule of our consciousness and our observations philosophically speaking about the states of systems.....

    The measurements and the interpretations of QM so become philosophially relevant because give roads inside and beyond this relativity at my opinion. That gives paradox lie the EPR for example in cosmology but can be applied for the quantum scale or our scale, beause it is mainly about the observations and the observed objects and how we must consider this relativity. Everett has well developped these things. The importance so of categoroes, numbers and PROBABILITIES become more than essential . There are probably many experiments to do about these general ideas and reasonings giving a better understanding about the interpretations of this QM, That tells us even that our QM is a not complete theory simply and that we must add deeper fields, particles and philosophies.

    So Rovelli is right about the fact that we could modify our views of this world that we observe. That is why this relativity maybe imply confusions about the real states and also we have probably deeper physical parameters to superimpose. That is why the problem of hidden variables is moe complex that we can imagine because beyond this relativity , so Rovelli is right about the actual relativitic observations but maybe make a small error in telling that we have no hidden variables because simply they are beyond these observations. It gives even deep questions about the informations and their primary essence and even about what are the foundamental objects in going farer than this relativity, that is why I consider spheres in a fluidity for the 3 main systems , thre photons, DE and DM, and not strings in 1d in this relativistic spacetime connected at this quantum and cosnmologial scales, And after with the geometrical algebras like the E8 of lie they consider the scalars, vectors, tensors and extradiemnsions to explain this reality and its observations, this reasoning imply several philosophical road about a god or a mathematical accident but the problem is not there, the problem is about the foundamental objects and the cause of this reality .

    My interpretation so in my theory of spherisation , an optimisation evolution of the universe is a kind of mix with the relational QM, the Copenaghian one and the Hidden variables not relativistic and the aim with the spherical geometrical topologial algebras and these spheres like foundmamental objects is to rank the categories and dimensions with the observations and consciousness with kinds of bridges but not easy . I try with the 3 main cosmologial free systems and in converging for the ordinary matter like a result of 3 others merging with these bridges but complex with these salars, tensors , vectors,

        Steve Dufourny
        Hi Steve,

        I doubt that the world is quite as mathematically complicated as some people (e.g. Bob Coecke) seem to think, because I think that there exist logical connective aspects of the world that people are trying to represent as mathematical relationships, and it can’t be done.

        The bigger picture is that the world is necessarily a self-contained, self-sufficient, standalone thing. There is nothing outside the world. So, the world is necessarily creative: it created its own specific categories, mathematical relationships between categories, and numbers, as well as assigning some numbers to some of the categories, where number assignment is also a creative act. Creativity is a logically necessary aspect of the world, and it hasn’t disappeared.

        But the abovementioned categories, relationships and numbers are insufficient to account for a moving system; a moving system also requires logical connective aspects. And a moving system also requires multiple entities, e.g. particles.

        To represent a moving system, you need to use the type of logical connective symbols used in computer programs. The logical connective symbols AND, OR, and IS TRUE, are used in statements to represent knowledge of the numbers that apply to the categories. And the logical connective symbols IF and THEN, are used in statements to represent the assignment of numbers to the categories, in response to particular situations.

        So, the multiple entities in the real-world moving system (e.g. particles) play a necessary part in a moving system because they perform these logically necessary "tasks" in a moving system:
        • Knowledge/ consciousness/ being an observer.
        • Creativity/ free will/ the ability to assign numbers to categories, i.e. the ability to “quantum number jump”.

        But on the very important issue of relativity, I have nothing to say. Except to say that time is clearly a category that is not so much a mathematical relationship, but more like a category that is the result of a primitive logical analysis of a situation, an analysis that requires the system to have logical aspects. These logical aspects are performed by the entities in a moving system (e.g. particles).

            The world is, not so much a set of equations and numbers, but a system where the equations and numbers play an important part.

            What is most important in a system are the logical aspects that might well be described as “consciousness” and “creativity”. In a system, knowledge/ awareness of oneself and one’s surroundings, on the part of the elements in the system, is paramount. And also paramount in a system, is the ability to creatively respond to one’s surroundings, i.e. to “jump” the numbers. An equation, that represents an inevitable law, does NOT represent a creative response to one’s surroundings. Clearly, the equations represent a non-creative response to the creative “number jumps” that are undertaken by the elements of the system (e.g. particles) in response to situations encountered.

            While the real world is a genuinely creative system, model systems need to substitute rules or algorithms for this creativity, because the elements in a model system are not like the creative, independent elements that comprise the real-world system.

            In the real-world system, the elements of the system (e.g. particles or atoms) are clearly aware not only of (what we would represent as) numbers. The elements have done a primitive logical analysis, and they are aware of number change, and the category “time” reflects this awareness.

              Lorraine Ford
              (continued)

              Re “time”:

              In a system, either the elements of the system know their own situation, OR there is something outside the system watching the system that knows the situations of all the elements in the system. In a self-contained, self-sufficient, standalone real-world system, with nothing outside the system, it is the elements of the system that know their own surrounding situation.

              The elements of the system need to know their own surrounding situation. The elements need to know if the numbers (that apply to the categories) have changed; this particular awareness is seemingly the source of a new category of information that we would describe as “time”. Time is seemingly a logically derived category of information.

              Time is not duplicated. Time does not also exist as a dimension with no actual numbers (or what we would represent as numbers); this type of time (i.e. a dimension) has no utility because it has no actual numbers.

                Why is there anything at all, why not nothing? And is this question connected to the nature of the world we see today, i.e. is this question connected to quantum mechanics and relativity?

                Firstly, it has to be reasonably assumed that the world is a self-contained, self-sufficient, standalone thing, and that there is nothing outside of the world.

                So, the world necessarily created the very specific, basic mathematical aspects of the world that we see today: the world created categories; the world created mathematical relationships between the categories; the world created numbers; the world assigned some numbers to some of the categories, where this number assignment is also a creative act.

                But there is no reason to think that creativity has suddenly disappeared in the world we see today. This is because quantum “number jumps” are the perfect example of creativity: what happens in quantum number jumps is that numbers are assigned to categories.

                The distinctive characteristic of quantum number jumps is NOT their embarrassing unpredictability. This unpredictability is embarrassing for the people who claim that the world can be defined with a few equations on the front of a T-shirt. But these people have masked their embarrassment by adopting a very definite-sounding and confident-sounding euphemism: “randomness”.

                The distinctive characteristic of quantum “number jumps” is that numbers have been assigned to categories, which is a creative act.

                Disrespect for the world is very deeply engrained in people, and it starts from the idea that an external God was needed to create the world, or the idea that the world needs something external like a Platonic realm in order to function, because the world itself is lacking in what is necessary.

                What is respected is the God, not the world. And if not a God, then what is respected is the mathematics, not the world.

                However, it is reasonable to assume that the world is in fact a self-contained, self-sufficient, standalone thing, and that there is nothing outside of the world. It is reasonable to assume that the world has within itself all the necessary features that would be attributed to a God, or a Platonic realm.

                The world itself is worthy of respect.

                And the only aspects of the world that can’t potentially be explained are it’s logically necessary aspects, i.e. consciousness and creativity.

                1. Creativity:

                The world necessarily created the very specific, basic mathematical aspects of the world that we see today: the world created categories; the world created mathematical relationships between the categories; the world created numbers; the world assigned some numbers to some of the categories, where this number assignment is also a creative act.

                This creation of new numbers, and assigning them to categories, are creative acts that are still happening to this day, as seen in "quantum number jumps".

                1. Consciousness:

                It is all very well for high-level human mathematicians to be conscious of the mathematical symbols on the page in front of them, but it is logically necessary that the low-level world would also be aware of its own categories, numbers and relationships. The high-level consciousness of the higher-level entities is made possible by the low-level consciousness of the low-level entities that make up the higher-level entities.

                ………………..…

                Isn’t it time that our theories of the world all STARTED with the question: Why is there anything at all, why not nothing? Isn’t it time that consciousness and creativity/ free will were seen as logically necessary aspects of the world, and not as aspects that later mysteriously “emerged”.

                Science SHOULD try to answer the question: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

                Because this question IS CLEARLY connected to the nature of the world we see today.

                I.e. this question IS NECESSARILY connected to quantum mechanics and relativity, as well as the issues of consciousness and creativity/ free will.

                So, this seems to be the trouble with a lot of “theories of everything”: they have no “theories of origin”. Complicated things and complicated situations are supposed to just exist at the foundations of a “theory of everything”, and no questions are asked about how these complicated things and situations came into existence.

                Various types of mathematical universes or information-theoretic universes are supposed to just exist for no reason at all. But there is nothing logically necessary about a mathematical universe, or an information-theoretic universe or any other sort of universe-structure, except perhaps logic itself.

                What IS logically necessary is a “something” that created the basic structure of the universe, and a “something” that knows about this structure. So, it has to be assumed that creativity and consciousness are the necessary logical aspects underlying every proposed universe-structure, but no logical reason can be found for the existence of the logical aspects themselves.

                Basic aspects of the structure of the universe can be represented with man-made mathematical symbols that represent categories (like mass or position), relationships between these categories (i.e. laws of nature), and numbers that apply to the categories.

                But the logical aspects of the universe can only be represented with man-made logical symbols, the types of symbols used in computer programs like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN.

                When combined in various ways, together with the mathematical symbols, statements containing these logical symbols can be used to represent the necessary logical aspects of the universe:

                • Consciousness/ knowledge. Simple knowledge of the structure; collated knowledge of the structure; the analysis of knowledge; and the construction of higher-level conceptual categories.
                • Creativity/ free will. The creation of structural outcomes that are not the result of law of nature relationships.

                  0:16 / 18:16 You Tube
                  9 Life Lessons - Tim Minchin UWA Address
                  The University of Western AustraliaThe University of Western Australia

                  Lorraine Ford
                  One of the topics of this thread is : Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?

                  But a “theory of origins” is necessarily pre-substance and pre-movement. So, what is the source of substance and movement and point of view in the world?

                  It has to be first assumed that the world is a self-contained, self-sufficient, standalone thing, and that there is nothing outside of the world, meddling in the world.

                  My view is that:

                  • The source of substance is the source of categories (like mass, energy or position), relationships between the categories, and numbers. To create this substance, the pre-substance world had to be creative.
                  • The source of movement is the assignment of numbers to the categories, together with the previously created relationships between the categories, which seemingly results in the movement of other numbers. To create this movement in the substance, once again the pre-substance world had to be creative.
                  • At the same time, while the world was seemingly once whole, now it is particleized and point -of-view. The source of point of view is seemingly the fragmentation of the pre-substance; the source of point of view is seemingly NOT movement in the substance.

                      Lorraine Ford
                      (continued)

                      So, this is a slightly simpler view of the world: a world seen in terms of the logically necessary aspects of a viable system, rather than assuming that mathematics is necessary, and able, to explain every aspect of the world.

                        6 days later

                        Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, Merry christmass, I was not there so I could not answer, thanks for sharing , it is interesting, I try to create a model for this consciousness and also for the quantum gravitation, I consider this for the tool that I have invencted the spherical topological geometrical algebras.

                        The momentum map is relevant for the hamiltonian dynamics for the symmetries of symplectics with the elgebraic structures , that conserves the quantities of systems mathematially speaking, the phases too are considered. It is what I tried in the past with my spherical geometrical topologial algebras. The lie groups are interesting for the mathematial operations and symmetries. The fact to apply these hamiltonians operations on the spheres and lie groups with the sympectics added permit infinite partitions.
                        It is also these conservations the most important for the quantities, we can even consider the informations and the encodings now and even these deeper fields for the consciousness and this fifth force. And even the evolution in time can be added.That permits to rank the energy, the angular momentum, this and that....
                        If the momentum maps are correlated with the spherical topological geometrical algebras and the symplectic systems and reductions, it becomes relevant about the degrees of freedom in this reduction preserving the hamiltonian structure. The actions so can be ranked. Many partitions are possible, they are even infinite with the spherical volumes and their rotations, motions and deformations, It is a big puzzle and we have deep limitations philosophial, mathematical and physical . The numbers are importanmt and the categories, I have thought a lot about what you told and this creativity like a main parameter, it is relevant, regards

                            Steve Dufourny
                            Hi Steve,

                            You have not yet articulated what you mean by the word “consciousness”.

                            I’m saying that basic-level consciousnesses are NOT at all like the following structural elements of the world:

                            • Relationships between categories.
                            • Categories (e.g. mass and position are categories).
                            • Numbers that apply to the categories.
                            • The superficial structures that can emerge from the point of view of someone observing the evolution a complex man-made mathematical system.

                            Instead, I’m saying that basic-level individual consciousnesses are actually on-the-spot point-of-view KNOWLEDGE of the structure, i.e. KNOWLEDGE of:

                            • Relationships between categories.
                            • Categories (e.g. mass and position are categories).
                            • Numbers that apply to the categories.
                            • The superficial structures that can emerge from the point of view of someone observing the evolution a complex man-made mathematical system.

                            So, I am saying that consciousness is a necessary aspect of the real-world system, it is the necessary on-the-spot point-of-view “WHAT IS TRUE” aspect of the system.

                            But I’m also saying that consciousness is a first-principles aspect of the world because, unlike the structural aspects of the world, the origin of consciousness can’t be explained.

                            …………….

                            Re creativity: You have not yet articulated what you mean by the word “creativity”. I’m saying that creativity is what created the structure; and also, that creativity is what initiated, and continues to initiate, movement in the numbers.

                                Hi Lorraine, we have understood what you mean but like I have explained before,you have not well articulated lol the philosophical origin of this consciousness and their fields and particles, you can develop with the general relativity and the QFT and QM and even with strings or points in 1D at this planck scale connected with a 1 d cosmic field of the GR, and if yes , what is the philosophical cause, if you consider the creativity, from what and how with the numbers and categories. For example take the lie groups if you consider what I told and the hamiltonians and give causes for the effects in ranking the groups and categories , so in resume, we need causes philosophical and physical for your creativity , numbers ,categories and specific models, best regards

                                  Lorraine Ford For me, the universe is not a mathematical universe,I think it is mainly a physical universe and that the mathematics are a tool permitting to better understand the physical laws but they can also imply confusions in the extrapolations. At my humble opinion ontologically and philosophically speaking I think in my theory that before the universe it was an infinite eternal consciousness and this thing beyond our underatanding has decided to create an universe with the energy matters transformations and informations and it is in evolution, it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, so the cause like I have asked you in my model comes from the informations antigravitational of this fifth force the DE encoding the photons and the DM, that is why the higgs mechanism is correlated with the DM because they are the quantas of mass in my reasoning and the photons permit this GR and SR and the bosonic fields in a simplistic resume .And the consciousness so is a pantheistic vue where we have these baryonic matters connected with this 0D of this infinite eternal consciousness,so there is something in our QM with a specific mechanism permitting the uniqueness of minds probably. I don t affrim,I just see like this .Why this thing hasdecidedto create this universe,maybelike an experience of evolution and evenmaybe this thing was alone simply . The intelligence is not the same than the consciousness . For the origin of the universe , nobody can affrim to know the truth, mathematical accident or a infinite consciousness, or others, nobody knows, that said if the consciousness exists, so .....

                                      Steve Dufourny
                                      Hi Steve,

                                      Have you given your opinion on "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?", which is one of the issues that this whole thread is supposed to be about?

                                      I notice (e.g. online videos) that many people seem to assume that, at the foundations or beginnings of the world, there was ALREADY mathematical structure. I notice that many people seem to consider that a mathematical or a quantum structure is the "nothing" out of which the "something", that we have today, has arisen. I'm saying that a mathematical or quantum structure can't be thought of as "nothing".

                                      So, in the context of "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?", my answer is that everything about the initial mathematical structure of the world, and the subsequent functioning and movement of the real-world mathematical system, CAN potentially be explained in terms of creativity and consciousness.

                                      But creativity and consciousness (as I have articulated them) are first principles aspects of a standalone, self-sufficient world, aspects that can't be reverse-explained in terms of the subsequent real-world mathematical structure, or the functioning and movement of the real-world mathematical system.

                                      I'm saying that:

                                      • The mathematical structure of the world had to be created and initialised; and
                                      • The mathematical system needs to know itself, because the nitty-gritty time-place numbers and categories are NOT Platonically true, because there is no such thing as a Platonic realm (and, in any case, a Platonic realm would require a separate explanation for its not-nothing existence).

                                        Steve Dufourny
                                        I'm saying that:

                                        • The mathematical structure of the world had to be created and initialised; and
                                        • The mathematical system needs to know itself, because the nitty-gritty time-place numbers and categories are NOT Platonically true, because there is no such thing as a Platonic realm (and, in any case, a Platonic realm would require a separate explanation for its not-nothing existence).

                                        Do you agree?

                                            Lorraine Ford
                                            I should add that, it is irrelevant whether relationships/ equations, categories and numbers etc. actually exist, in the same way that we high-level human beings might imagine them to exist. What is important is that we need to represent what exists using special man-made symbols. And so, we have to think of what exists in terms of these relationships/ equations, categories and numbers.

                                              Steve,

                                              I’m saying that what created the real-world system hasn’t retired and gone on a holiday.

                                              I’m saying that what the particular equations and numbers are in the real-world system (i.e. what we represent with equations and numbers) is almost irrelevant. Because equations and numbers CAN’T describe a moving system. Can’t. How many times does it have to be explained that none of these special mathematical devices can describe a moving system?

                                              I’m saying that what IS relevant is that the real-world system needs to know itself, and the real-world system needs to move itself. These are necessary aspects of any viable system.

                                              So, if you are claiming that the real-world system is a zombie automaton, like everybody else is claiming, can you tell me how you think the real-world system knows about its own very specific on-the-spot time-place relationships, categories and numbers?

                                              And, if you are claiming that the real-world system is a zombie automaton, like everybody else is claiming, can you tell me how you think the real-world system moves its own numbers that apply to the categories?

                                              How does it know? How does it move? Because the particular equations and numbers, and other mathematical devices, are almost irrelevant.