More Than Discrete or Continuous: A Bird's View by Marius Buliga

Dear Marius,

If I understand well, your essay proposes an isomorphism between reality and our brain constructs, and you complement this view by arguing that there is a bias in how we understand physics, due to the way brain works. I find interesting your hypothesis of the "dilation gate", due to our binocular view and determining the way we understand calculus and differential geometry.

In the parallel between orwellian, stalinesque and multiple drafts, and theories in physics, you said at (b) "I am not aware of physical theories supposing that a discrete reality conspires to give (to any observer) the appearance of being continuous.". My impression is that (if I understand well your statement) there are such discrete theories - which introduce length cutoff for various reasons, mainly in order to avoid the problems due to non-renormalizability of gravity. For example, the lattice models, the causal sets of Sorkin, the spin networks of Penrose and their application to loop quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity, approaches based on Schild's ladder and Regge calculus, 't Hooft's discrete theory, GFQT approaches etc. These theories are based on discrete reality, their experimental test is out of our present capabilities, and it turned out to be difficult to make them "quack" like a continuous spacetime, with 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal, Lorentz invariance and so on.

I find very convincing your argument based on Rademacher's theorem.

I would be interested in learning more about the parallel you made:

"Under Plato's hypothesis, it follows that:

(A) reality emerges from a more primitive, non-geometrical, reality

in the same way as

(B) the brain construct (understands, simulates, transforms, encodes or decodes) the image of reality, starting from intensive properties (like a bunch of spiking signals sent by receptors in the retina), without any use of extensive (i.e. spatial or geometric) properties."

I mean, I agree with you that the brain introduces a bias. Therefore, to what extent the parallel between the brain constructs and the emergence of reality still holds?

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Marius,

maybe another connection between (A) and (B) is given by Jean Piaget's theory, inspired by the Erlangen program. His view is that child's mind first develops topological concepts, then projective, and then Euclidean.

If our world is a mathematical structure, it can be described by adding one kind of mathematical relation on top of another. For example, if it is a continuum, we start with the topological structure, then we add the differential one, then perhaps the Lorentz metric. The metric can emerge in two steps: first, only up to a conformal factor (the causal structure), then the affine structure, which gives the volume element. Or maybe it splits into space distance and time duration. Then there are the spin structure and the principal bundles providing the standard model forces. Of course, all this needs to be quantized.

Maybe our mind just tries to control/predict the outside world's behavior as a black box, (B) just tries to reproduce the functionality of (A) with an internal model, through evolution. In this case, how is implemented the functionality of (A) and (B) can be radically different, important is the functional similarity. Maybe (A) is a priori inside us, and we rediscover it by anamnesis, and this is how (B) emerges. Maybe, to connect with the orvellian/MWI, as J.A. Wheeler put it, it is all a game of 20 questions, and whatever (B) becomes, this establishes retroactively how (A) was. I hope your work may add some light here.

Good luck with your interesting and original research and with the contest,

Cristi

Dear Marius,

see attachment

Regards,

narsep (ioannis hadjidakis)Attachment #1: Dear_Marius.doc

Dear Sir,

Plato was a great thinker and we differ from your interpretation of his statement. What he meant by sight is ocular perception, which, in conjunction with tactile perception generates the notion of numbers. We have written a book on number theory, in which we have defined number precisely. In our essay, we have referred to this briefly. Often scientists avoid precise definition and resort to operational definitions that are flexible enough to be manipulated in various ways to suit one's convenience. Thus, we find different interpretations of quantum physics.

Number is a property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no other objects similar to the one perceived, it is said to be one. If there are others, then we perceive each as one similar to the other. The sequences of different perceptions give rise to the perception of different numbers. All physical phenomena are nothing but accumulation and reduction of numbers - thus, mathematical. However, fundamentally, mathematics is done only in two ways. Linear accumulation and reduction is called addition and subtraction. Non-linear accumulation and reduction is called multiplication and division. Linear accumulation is possible only between similars. Non-linear accumulation is possible only between partially similars.

Perception is possible only if there is motion. It is because perception is the result of measurement, which in turn is the comparison between similars. Comparison is an action that is possible with the application of energy that leads to motion. Without motion (including radiation), no perception is possible. Lines are mobile points, which are either closed or open ended. Geometry is related to motion, because it is related to fields and volumes, which are generated out of closed lines. From this perspective, reality, as defined by Plato, is neither primitive nor non-geometrical.

Your statement B) has a different explanation. Perception may be of two types: those that are directly perceptible - like matter and those that are perceptible only because of their effect on matter - like energy. Space and time belong to the second category. They do not have physical existence. We note the order of arrangement of objects and designate the interval between these as space through alternative symbolism. Same way, we designate the order of arrangement of events as time. While matter particles having mass confined around a central point are linearly accumulative, energy without such confinement behaves differently. Different forces co-exist, but are not linearly accumulative. Reality is a combination of both. We have taken these into account in our essay and discussed the issue without any exotic "mathematics". In fact from various posts under different eddays, you may see that we have explained motion without any exotic manipulation in the name of mathematics.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Homunculus argument is a wrong description of the mechanism of ocular perception. We have discussed the mechanism of ocular perception briefly in our essay. When the field set up by the radiation from an objects travels through the intervening space between the object and our eyes, and interacts with the field set up by our eyes, it is measured (compared) with the later. The picture looks somewhat similar to the Earth's magnetosphere when it interacts with solar wind. This explains the shape of the eye. When these impressions are carried by the neurons, they carry an opposite (mirror image) impression. This opposite impression, when interacts with the specific regions of the brain, becomes the true image, just like a casting is prepared with mirror image gives rise to the true object. There no "homunculus" other than the conscious mechanism. This wrong description of facts cannot be used to build a theory of reality.

Beta movement is related to the perception of indiscernible. Since two indiscernible light sources appear in quick succession at short intervals, it gives the illusion of jumping of the light source.

Multiple Drafts Model of Consciousness, as proposed by Dennett, claims that conventional explanations of the color change boil down to either Orwellian or Stalinesque hypotheses, which he says are the result of Descartes' continued influence on our vision of the mind. The Orwellian hypothesis is fictional, and the Stalinesque hypotheses' depicts dictatorial perversion. Hence these cannot be used to build a theory of reality.

Multiple drafts hypothesis - "there are a variety of sensory inputs from a given event and also a variety of interpretations of these inputs" - is again a wrong description of the mechanism of perception. We receive different sensory inputs which are processed differently (some have been described briefly in our essay). These perceptions are centrally processed in our brain to give the final out put. For example, when we see a flower, we also smell its fragrance and without touching, perceive its softness.

These wrong interpretations led Everett to propose his misguided theory known as Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. We believe in Multiverses which we derive from fundamental principles, but not in Everett's theory.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Marius,

Just wanted to let you know that I have read your essay. It was in fact the first that I read because I was curious to see if there was overlap in our ideas and the content submitted for this contest. Although we are both looking at the appearance of reality,( which when produced by a human being is an experience of reality generated in part through binocular vision, as you discuss), you are looking at the human experience and I am dealing more with external reality.

I do not have a mathematical background so your mathematical explanations and terminology soon became too much for me.It is obvious from your high rating that others have not found it so and I seen no reason for you not to communicate your ideas as you think best and in the way most suited to your thinking style and education.I have had to use plain English which I suppose may seem a little naive to physics specialists or mathematicians such as yourself.

I do think that the gulf between the experience of reality and external reality that can be supposed and is modeled by physics and mathematics is a very important one. I do not know if neuroscience or physics will be the first to claim this territory or whether it will generate a dynamic area of interdisciplinary research.

Most of all I loved your explanation of the title at the very end. I had not heard that before and thought it was lovely. It was nice that it tied the end of the essay in with the philosophical introduction. Good luck to you.

Dear Marius,

Nice!

You've precisely nailed the essential question of whether external nature is different from brain mechanics. You could be right that a specific brain geometry drives perception. I expect this is going to be a very lively and interdisciplinary research area, and you've certainly got a leg up on it.

You might be interested, with your emphasis on metric spaces and random walks, that I gave a specifically physical definition to the time metric (NECSI, ICCS 2006) -- "n-dimension infinitely orientable metirc on self-avoiding random walk" -- to skirt the very problem you suggest. I.e., we don't know except as defined what we mean by a manifold. However, as we know that every Riemann surface is orientable, analytic continuation over n dimensions allows metric space properties and random walk dynamics.

As mathematcians, we know that we can't answer whether that is because of the way our brain is configured, or whether nature is so constructed, though my bet is on the latter.

Good luck with your research program and the contest.

All best,

Tom

"But the race of birds was created out of innocent light-minded men, who,

although their minds were directed toward heaven, imagined, in their simplicity,

that the clearest demonstration of the things above was to be obtained by

sight; these were remodelled and transformed into birds, and they grew feathers

instead of hair." (source [1])

Marius.

My view is that reality is independent of prescient beings who try to simulate it and gather its characteristics from those simulations. I believe the metaphor above indicates how we taint reality with simple approaches.

Jim Hoover

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.