De brogle maths togther with Einxstins dice programmed to obey the rules 1 ODD THROW 1 EVEN THROW= 2 ODD THROWS.

And 2 ODD THROWS 2 EVEN THROWS= 4 EVEN THROWS.

Can be used to generate a simulated quantum universe on computer where everything is determined.

And we cna develop an algorythm to predict random numbers in our real universe.

This maths apples before the big bang where foru states are one and this determines the fact that the four forces are one.

Everthing is determined when the four forces are one.

And Einsteins thoery determines everything that happens before the big bang................

Do you appreciate this contribution let me know.

17 days later

Dear Felix ,

I will not download your paper to read as I can see from your discussion with Florin that it is concerned with the mathematical description of reality rather than the physics of what is real.I have read your argument that it is a valid approach to the essay question. As I have no mathematical background and am not even a physics specialist I could not begin to comprehend what you have written in your essay. Likewise I would be unable to decipher a physics paper written by Lawrence Crowell.

With respect Sir can I just ask, Is reality digital or analogue? Did you come to a conclusion? or did you argue something entirely different?

    Dear Felix,

    I had not read the entire content of your thread, which is now rather lengthy. On looking to see if you had posted a reply to my question I noticed your reply to Tomasso above, which actually does answer my question very well.

    You have said "First of all, let me note that in my understanding, the question "Is Reality Digital Or Analog?" is meaningful only if it is understood as a question about mathematics describing reality." Which is probably because you are mathematician and think like a mathematician. Which is not a criticism but a possible reason for your particular thinking style and approach to the problem.

    I actually agree that all we can do is create models which we hope describe reality as we can not fully construct the reality itself or know what lies beneath our mental interpretation and the descriptions created by human minds, verbal or mathematical.

    I can see that you have given a full explanation to Tomasso. I can not grasp all of it but the last paragraph caught my attention. You say you agree with Heisenburg that a fundamental physical theory should not involve space-time at all. I agree that at the most foundation level space-time does not exist but that it is an emergent reality produced subsequent to interception of data by an observer, whether that is a conscious entity or an inanimate reality interface such as a camera or other recording device.

    I wish I was able to discuss your essay in more detail. I have found some of the conversation in your thread most interesting.

    Kind regards and good luck, Georgina.

    Dear Georgina,

    Thank you for your interest to my essay. First of all, let me note that I am not a mathematician since am not working on mathematical theories. Mathematicians work with theories based on sets of axioms; typically they don't discuss how their theories apply to reality. But physics cannot be without math. In my essay I argue that any fundamental physical theory can be based only on a finite math. In other words, I believe that reality is not only discrete (digital) but even finite.

    I read your essay and tried to understand your approach to spacetime. Probably our approaches have much in common since you do not accept that spacetime is fundamental. But in my understanding you accept that spacetime can be an emergent notion and here we have disagreements. Let me describe my understanding of spacetime.

    In physics there is a principle that a definition of a physical quantity is a description of how it should be measured. In quantum theory this principle is formalized by requiring that any physical quantity can be discussed only in conjunction with the operator defining this quantity. When we have an elementary particle or a macroscopic body, we can define operators charactering them; some of the operators can be called the coordinate operators and we can discuss whether the coordinates can be measured with a sufficient accuracy etc. But the notion of spacetime has nothing to do with coordinates of real bodies. The assumption is that spacetime is a manifold, which exists even if there are no bodies at all. It is obvious that the notion of spacetime fully contradicts the above principle since spacetime exists only in our imagination and is not measurable. In particular, a discussion whether the empty spacetime can be curved or flat has no physical meaning; in particular, the cosmological constant problem is not a problem at all [9]. However, the absolute majority of physicists accept spacetime. Their argument is that although spacetime is not measurable, it is only an auxiliary tool for constructing equations of motion for real bodies in General Relativity (GR) or Hilbert spaces in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and since those theories in many cases give an excellent agreement with the data, this proves that spacetime is meaningful. In other words, a question is whether nonphysical notions can be used at intermediate stages of constructing physical theories.

    I believe it is obvious that the notion of spacetime reflects our macrocopic experience that everything is continuous, can be divided into any number of parts etc. Physicists used this notion when they did not know about elementary particles, that matter is discrete, cannot be divided into any number of particles etc. One can say that we are using this notion since we don't have another math. As shown in my essay and papers, we do have another math, which is not using continuity, the notion of infinitely small etc. but can be used in physics.

    Several authors treated GR as a theory where spacetime is replaced by a reference frame. For example, in a well known textbook by Landau and Lifshits "Classical Field Theory", the reference frame in GR is defined as a collection of weightless bodies, each of which is characterized by three numbers (coordinates) and is supplied by a (weightless) clock. Such a notion (which resembles ether) is not physical even on classical level and for sure it is meaningless on quantum level.

    In 60th, the majority of quantum physicists came to a consensus that any future fundamental theory should not involve spacetime at all (in the spirit of the Heisenberg S-matrix program). In the introductory section of the well known textbook [8] the authors argue that local quantum fields and Lagrangians are rudimentary notions which will disappear in the future theory. Nobody has refuted those arguments but in view of successes of QCD and electroweak theory physicists returned to QFT. In string theory the notion of spacetime is used even in a greater extent than in QFT. Here it is discussed whether spacetime has 10, 11 or 26 dimensions; physics is defined by a choice of a Calabi-Yau manifold at Planck distances etc. I believe it is rather obvious that manifolds, geometry, topology, differential equations etc. have arisen from our macroscopic experience. For example, the water in the ocean can be described by equations of hydrodynamics but we know that this is only an approximation since matter is discrete. There is no reason to believe that continuity, geometry, topology etc. work even at Bohr distances, to say nothing about Planck distances.

    In my papers I argue that theory should start not from spacetime but from a symmetry algebra. The idea is simple (in the spirit of Dirac's paper [13]): each system is described by a set of independent operators and they somehow commute with each other. By definition, the rules how they commute define a Lie algebra which is treated as a symmetry algebra. For example, if we choose a Poincare or de Sitter algebras then in quasiclassical approximation we obtain a description equivalent to that obtained from a four-dimensional spacetime. When we choose the de Sitter algebra, we first do not have the de Sitter space, Riemannian geometry, metric, connection etc. However, as shown in [9], in quasiclassical approximation we recover standard results of GR for the motion of particles in the de Sitter space.

    My impression is that, although very slowly, physicists are returning to ideas of 60th that fundamental physics should not involve spacetime at all; several physicists note that on quantum level spacetime is meaningless etc. But the number of such physicists is very small.

    My impression from your essay is that in general you accept the above ideas. However, there is a trend that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent. I tried to understand those papers; maybe I am wrong but my impression is that for physicists it is very difficult to abandon spacetime at all. Some of them may accept that spacetime might be discrete or emergent but for me it is not clear why we need spacetime at all. Again, maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that when you are talking about the emergent spacetime, you in fact mean measurements of coordinates of real bodies; so maybe this is only a question of terminology but the coordinates of real bodies have nothing to do with spacetime coordinates.

    I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.

    Best regards, Felix.

    It will be cool if you were more realistic and less in the computing.

    But it's well you are good computer and skilling in maths.

    It's sad you confound a little the globality with some invented laws for computing.

    But perhaps you can find some convergences or correspondences after all.Galois and Lie hihihih interesting.

    ps quaternions, octionions, complexs...are all under laws of the 3D sphere,that's all.

    I suspect a big problem about your universal topology and your intrinsic domains....that's why even your infinity is bad understood.

    That's why probably your simulations lack of essentials.But it's interesting, it's well.hihihhi

    ps dear all ahaha Riemann and Poincarré are in them.Perhaps they can solve the conjectures, but only if and only if they insert the 3D sphere and the rotations spinals and orbitals.After all the quantization of mass is essential for the real universality and its simlulations.

    crazzy this belgian , I love this platform.

    ps GOOD LUCK IN YOUR RESEARCHS OF CONJECTURES AND CORRESPONDENCES HAHAHAH

    Steve

    a small node here ....a small geometrical form here, ...and some series ....and extraadimensions ...still others nodes of course and a string....and after of course the universe is a computer where we can change our universal laws.

    And of course also the time machine is possible and even we can go faster than light, yes because their simulations(pay attention, with their laws, even g is different) say that.

    And also we have multiverses also because the computer says that....no but frankly and after the lie groups and galois gropus which fuses and of course the laws also ....

    We can create a picture, that doesn't mean that this picture exists respecting the quantization of mass and the newtonian polarization and fractalization.

    Regards

    Steve

    lol but you are skilings ....frustrating for me to see your skillings and in the same time some of your conclusions. You know it dear Lawrence, skilling but not your globality and generality.

    Now I take my meds.hihihi lol

    Best and good luck in this contest,sincerely even if I tease you sometimes.

    Steve

    4 days later

    We conclude that the very notion of particle-antiparticle is approximate

    and the electric, baryon and lepton charges are only approximately conserved quantities.

    The non-conservation of the baryon and lepton quantum numbers has been

    already considered in models of Grand Unification but the electric charge has been

    always believed to be a strictly conserved quantum number. The non-conservation

    of these quantum numbers also completely changes the status of the problem known

    as "baryon asymmetry of the Universe" since at early stages of the Universe energies

    were much greater than now and therefore transitions between particles and

    antiparticles had a much greater probability.

    Felix,

    This quote from your essay seems to support the analogue nature of particles, the inclination to change energies and nature like the electron neutrinos changing to tau neutrinos after emerging from the sun's fusion.

    Your argument is esoteric, yet convincing, especially to the mathematically challenged like myself.

    Jim Hoover

      Jim,

      It is not clear to me why, in your opinion, this quote from my essay "seems to support the analogue nature of particles". As shown in the essay, there is a correspondence principle between my approach and standard theory. In particular, there are no obstacles for recovering the results on neutrino oscillations in my approach.

      Felix.

      5 days later
      7 days later

      Tom,

      Thank you for your compliments. The ideas that the ultimate theory will not be based on local fields were very popular in 60th (e.g. the Heisenberg S-matrix program) but now those ideas are almost forgotten.

      I read your essay and tried to understand your position. You quote many well known scientists who had different opinions. However, so far I could not understand what your preferences are. Probably a more careful reading is required.

      Felix.

      Felix,

      Briefly, my personal preference is for quantum field theory in a continuous function model. I find this possible only in an extradimensional theory. I discussed my own preference only in the technical endnote, because my intent in the essay was to survey how subtle the question of continuous vs. discrete really is.

      I agree with you on the problematic nature of Zorn's lemma (axiom of choice). On that issue, you might be interested in my ICCS 2006 paper in which I show (see particularly 5.6 - 5.9) how a well ordered sequence is derived without appeal to AC.

      Best,

      Tom

        8 days later

        Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.

        Sir,

        We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

        "We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

        Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

        Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

        Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

        A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

        Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

        In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

        The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

        The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

        Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

        The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

        Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

        In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

        Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".

        Regards,

        Basudeba.