Essay Abstract

If reality is analog, in the sense that there is an infinitely divisible spacetime, then relativity theory describes a macrocosm that is autonomous, deterministic and obeys locality. If reality is digital, in the sense that spacetime is granular, then quantum theory describes a microcosm with indeterminacy at the level of particle interaction. In an attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction between the words of relativity and quantum physics, we may attempt to answer a fundamental question about the nature of reality: is it analog or digital? I will assume in this paper that reality is fundamentally digital and then based on a modern version of the old doctrine of Cartesian occasionalism I will sketch a model of the world that allows both uncertainty and autonomy within the limits of physical laws. I will then outline an experiment that has the potential of falsifying the model.

Author Bio

Efthimios Harokopos received a BS and a MS from State University of New York at Buffalo and completed all the coursework for a PhD at Columbia University while working for AT&T and Bell Labs. He is an independent researcher in the field of philosophy of science.

Download Essay PDF File

Is the experiment proposed occuring continously in our head? What I mean is that our brain is a huge biological compouter runing in its full capacity when it is not at rest. However, its output varies (according to our opinions) although inputs and rules of thinking are the same for everybody.

Regards, narsep

    Hello Ioannis,

    Actually the proposed experiment occurs in some forms continuously in the whole universe, not only in our brains. The objective is to set it up so that it may generate an error between expected output and actual output. This is the purpose of the nanoprocessor, in that it will enable us to run a very complicated algorithm at a very high rate and at the same time the experiment reference frame will be accelerated at high speeds. Now, although the basic experiment runs continuously in the universe, the specific setup is under conditions that may, I want to stress this "may", allow us to detect deviations from expected output.

    All the best.

    • [deleted]

    This is intriguing. I didn't know that Descartes believed in a continuously recreated world. This sounds a lot like a computer generated virtual reality.

    Can you explain the experiment a little more? Why are you suggesting moving the processor at high speeds?

    Thank you.

      Hello,

      The basis for the experiment is derived from the proposed model, which in turn was based on a modified version of Cartesian occasionalism. The prediction is that if there is a mechanism that is the real cause of all interactions in the universe then it may have an upper operational limit locally. By locally, I mean over very short distances, like a few hundred meters. If the demand for coordination of motion locally exceeds what the mechanism can accomplish then we may be able to detect that. The setup I propose is a processor made up of nanoscale transistors, billions of them. Currently, fats processors are made of billion of regular transistors. Nanoscale transistors would allow more density. next, the processor is instructed to run a complex algorithm. This required a high degree of coordination in the movement of electrons in the nanoscale transistors according to a certain timing imposed by the processor clock. If in addition the processor is accelerated at very high speeds, it may be possible to detect deviations from the expected output of the program it runs due to the inability of the mechanism that coordinates all causes to properly achieve its objective. Accelerating the processor makes, supposedly, the job of the mechanism much harder.

      The analog, which I did not state in the paper due to space limitations, is how the output of a digital camera is distorted when it is moved fast. The camera has no time to refresh its display and as a result it misses frames. If you know what it was supposed to record, when you look at the video you know something went wrong. In this experiment we know what the processor must output and if it does not, assuming the experiment was setup properly and there is no noise or other interference, then something is wrong at the local scale.

      Please note that experiments in physics can only corroborate or falsify theories. Experiments cannot prove any theory to be a true representation of how reality works. The objective of physics is progress through falsification of new scientific theories. A scientific theory is one that generates predictions that can be tested. A physics theory that does not generate testable predictions is not scientific.

      I hope I answered your questions.

      All the best.

      Yasu Efthimios,

      I did not follow all the arguments you put forward in detail, but was happy about various highlights of your paper. Yes Descartes had a highly original idea of an ether filling all of space, and his concept of (analog?) vortices as the cause of the propagation of light is somehow related to my Beautiful Universe theory of spinning analog nodes as building blocks of the universe. I too (and many others of course) disagree with Einstein's decision to make measurement absolute (c is constant) while creating a relative reality (flexible space-time). Why did Lorentz not defend his position more vehemently and save the ether and perhaps much else in physics besides.

      Your proposed experiment made me think of two things: Could you not set it up in such a way so as to make use of some sort of moire effect? This effect relies on two screens seen slightly apart (hence one is seen slightly smaller) , creating fringes much larger than the wires of either screen. Do not ask me how this can be implemented when the 'wires' are the tiniest elements of reality!

      The other thing is that the iphone and similar devices have no shutter and when set in motion while taking a picture the result is unexpected as explained here perhaps in a similar way that your moving sensor would work? Cheers

      Vladimir

        Yasu (Hello) Vladimir,

        Thanks for your remarks. As far as special relativity, I belong to the group of those who think that the constancy of the speed of light is necessary in order to make the theory consistent and that Einstein was correct in inventing it. The issue is whether the theory is a true description of how reality operates. I cannot answer this question until we know something more about the nature of reality. I tend to think that special relativity although very consistent mathematically and in its predictions cannot be a true theory of reality but you can never know. Maybe life is a movie and everything, including writing this post, was predetermined at the time of big bang.

        As far as the moire effect you mentioned, this is a very interesting thought and there have been some experiments already to determine if spacetime is digital using light coming from distant stars. These experiments have been somewhat controversial. But I have to think more of your suggestion.

        All the best.

        Vladimir,

        I forgot to comment on your iphone remark.

        This effect was only an analogue I used. The iphone and in general all devices with digital cameras have a limitation in refreshing their screens because of the algorithms they use. In my experiment then, the iphone would be reality and my processor would be the image to capture, which is moving at high speeds and has known details. Thus, the sensor you mentioned is reality itself and the image is the experiment. I hope I explained this better this time around.

        Cheers.

        Efthimios,

        SR was an imaginative and elegant solution to the ether 'problem' However if it is assumed that all matter and the vacuum is electrical as Hertz theorized, that allows for an absolute space and time with variable speed of light. And it greatly simplifies GR (which is now dependent on SR) to a question of local density or potential of space. Such space refracts geodesics like a mirage would.

        In my original Beautiful Universe Theory (reference 48 in my present fqxi paper) I have proposed an experiment to test the ordered texture of the universe. It is based on a standing wave of strong electromagnetic radiation in vacuum. A second wave is shone normal to it. If it acts like a diffraction grating it means the vacuum has this crystal-like structure. Two parallel standing waves can produce a moire pattern, I suppose.

        The iphone example is just to show how an instrument can be used to distort reality. You have a specific idea - maybe a sketch will help explain it further. I feel your sensor may be like a filter moving to intercept elements of the digital world - like a baleen whale swimming through a school of tiny fish? Cheers

        Vladimir

        Vladimir,

        I agree with you that an ether-based theory with absolute background and universal time and SR are experimentally indistinguishable. This is understood in the circles of Relativity theory. I believe that Einstein's thesis was that the ether is not required mathematically. I also agree that this mathematical solution leads to metaphysical commitments, as I state in my paper, that are maybe unacceptable. I like your experiment. I think you may have something there but I must admit I do not know a lot about the moire affect in the context your employ it. I must do some more reading in this area. However, this is a reference to work of Richard Lieu who claimed that in similar experiments he found no evidence of a granular space:

        http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/585/2/L77

        Furthermore, in Italy, Fabio Benatti and Roberto Floreanini proposed using atom interferometers to search for granularity of space, by separating and then recombining two beams of precisely synchronized neon atoms. When the beams merge they form an interference pattern. I was not able to find the reference for this experiment.

        Best regards-

        • [deleted]

        Dear Sir,

        You begin with the premise that relativity deals with analog and quantum theory deals with digital descriptions of the Universe. In our essay, we begin with the premise that there is no consistency between the various interpretations of quantum theory and that there is no unanimity about what constitutes reality. Each branch of quantum theory comes with its own interpretations, which sometimes contradict the other interpretations. Thus, when you talk about quantum theory, you must specify which interpretation you are referring to. Elsewhere in this contest, we have elaborately discussed relativity in our posts to show that it is a wrong description of facts and that Einstein's mathematics is wrong. In one of the posts under Mr. Castel's essay, we have quoted verbatim from Einstein's 30-06-1905 paper and refuted it beyond doubt. Having said this, we examine your essay:

        The simplest answer to Zeno's paradox is that velocity is related to the mass of the body that is moving, the energy used (force applied) to move it and the total density of and the totality of the energy operating on the field. These are all mobile units against the back drop of the field that is static with reference to these. Middle of the distance is related to the frame of reference, which is relatively static with reference to the other mobile aspects. Thus, it is like comparing position and momentum. They do not commute. Hence there is no paradox, which is borne out of experience. While the middle of the distance is gradually reduced, the velocity is not reduced by the same proportion.

        While Descartes analyzed the problem correctly, his conclusion was not as correct. Once a force is applied in a certain direction, it disturbs the medium. The elasticity of the medium (which we call the inertia of restoration, as it is generated after the application of a force and its magnitude is equal to the force - till the applied force overcomes it - but in the opposite direction), generates the opposite force. The effect of these forces appears as stress and strain. This is one of the factors responsible for motion. The other factor is related to density, which is related to the strength of local confinement. Confinement is not related to quarks only, but it has a macro equivalent that confines every particle. The only difference between these is that while at micro level, this property leads two particles to create of a third product as in a compound, in the macro world they couple like a mixture. Thus, it is comparatively easier to isolate and separate them. Descartes was right that "an active cause is required that must be in direct contact with the body in motion and that cause should not be in motion itself". After the application of initial force (active cause), the force ceases to operate and the body moves on inertia. We have explained all motion and evolution of all forces and particles based only on inertia without bringing in God. Regarding nature of time and the views of Leibnitz, kindly read our essay and the posts below the essays of Mr. Biermans, Mr. Perez and Mr. Castel.

        In our essay we had given a different interpretation about Uncertainty relation and Superposition of states. We do not use any hypothesis that cannot be derived from fundamental principles. In our post below the essays of Mr. Castel, Mr. Perez and Mr. Klingman we have discussed about entanglement and its macro equivalent. Locality is the extent of confinement. It may or may not be physical. What is often overlooked is the fact that the so-called entanglement of photons does not extend infinitely, but collapses maximum within a few kilometers. The movement of light in different media shows that its velocity is not constant. Since density of space is the least from other observable localities, the velocity of light is greatest in observable space. Since space is not homogeneous, it is not a constant in space either.

        Kindly do not consider this post as the denunciation of your thoughts or our bravado. We are deeply pained by how the scientific community is making merry at public expenses in chasing mirages in the name of scientific research, while technologists are toiling without the benefit of theory guiding them. Thus, we are flooded with many comforts of life that slowly poison the whole world and leading it towards disaster. Thus, kindly excuse us if our post appears to hurt your sentiments.

        Regards,

        basudeba

          Hello,

          This is an excellent link regarding the experimental basis of Special relativity:

          http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

          As fas as the various interpretations of quantum theory, to which I make reference in my paper, they do not lead to different experimental predictions but only to different ontological commitments. Thus, the problem with the different interpretations is only philosophical.

          if you are more interested in Zeno's paradox I suggest you read the references in my paper. The fundamental premise in Zeno's paradox, as Barnes demonstartes in an extensive treatment, is that "nothing can perform infinite tasks". If you are to resolve the paradox, you must first prove this fundamental premise false. I cannot see how your velocity function does that. Maybe you can explain this further.

          Regards

          • [deleted]

          Dear Sir,

          We have refuted the experimental basis of of relativity in our post below the essay of Mr. Castel. Since it is very long, we are not reproducing it here. You may refer to that and refute if you wish.

          Since the various ontological commitments of the different interpretations of quantum theory are not fully integrable to a common approach, this aspects needs to be examined at length.

          We do not want to know more about Zeno's paradox, we refute it. We have shown that the fundamental premise is false. Regarding velocity function, we cannot see how does it validate Zeno's paradox, but we have the answer, which we have discussed in our post below the essay of Mr. Perez and others.

          Our only intention is to find out the truth and not score points. Kindly forgive us if any of our comments appear harsh. After all palatable benevolence is a rarity.

          Regards,

          basudeba.

          Hello,

          You wrote: "We have refuted the experimental basis of relativity in our post below the essay of Mr. Castel. Since it is very long, we are not reproducing it here. You may refer to that and refute if you wish."

          You mean you have refuted the work of thousands of credible scientists in many laboratories and universities around the world in the past 60 years in a reply to a post?

          I hope this is just a joke. I take it that way, no offense.

          Regards and good luck to you.

          • [deleted]

          My two favorite essays in this competition both have to do with virtual reality -- yours and Brian Whitworth's. Though the essays are only loosely related, because of differences in definition, the overarching idea that we cannot differentiate "reality" from "process" _in principle_ is one that deserves a lot more attention than it gets, IMO.

          For myself, I long ago decided that metaphysical realism (Popper) is the correct substitute for "physical" notions. We can't know what's physical in any objective sense, yet we can know how to reconcile theory with result on something resembling Tarski's correspondence theory of truth, from which Popper drew much of his philosophy.

          I think your proposed experiment may not be Popper falsifiable, however, because I don't see a way to show that the program potentially halts. To illustrate, consider how Popper demonstrated hypothesis testing by reformulating two number theory conjectures (still unproven) that are closely related: The Goldbach Conjecture and the Twin Primes Conjecture.*

          Popper called the Goldbach Conjecture true if G: for every natural number x > 2, there exists at least one natural number y such that x y and (2 x) - y are both prime. The Twin Primes Conjecture is true if H: for every natural number x > 2, there exists at least one natural number y such that x y and (2 x) y are both prime.

          Neither G nor H are verifiable, but G is falsifiable and H is not. Your proposal as I read it falls into the H category; i.e., I think at best you could only conclude that the quantum configuration space cannot be mapped onto the physical space (which in your case amounts to a universal Turing machine) without a nonlocal model. Bell's theorem already informs us of that. If Chaitin's number Omega is the halting probability of a universal Turing machine (and I think it is) then there is no possible falsfication. (G potentially halts when an iterated calculation hits a counterexample). If you want to read a more formalized treatment,my ICCS 2006 paper goes into it.

          Thanks for a really thoughtful, well organized and well argued essay. (Though you might have found a spell checker would improve it.)

          Tom

          *K. Popper, 1983. _Realism and the Aim of Science_.

            Hello Tom,

            Thanks for your comments and the reference. I find them very important and they amount to more homework for me.

            You are correct to point out that there is a possibility that the experiment may not be falsifiable. However, this is the situation: We know that the program halts when there is no motion. What we are looking for is errors when motion takes place and/or the program becomes more complicated. I am not a mathematician and I cannot describe the difference in a more rigorous way. There is an additional assumption about reality that goes beyond mathematics and it is that of an upper limit in the local processing capability of a mechanism that generates a virtual reality. If the mechanism has infinite processing capacity then you are correct, this is not a falsifiable experiment. But if it does not have infinite capacity, it is falsifiable. The only way to find out is by trying it. If the result is negative (no errors), nothing can be concluded. If the result is positive, then that can only corroborate the virtual reality hypothesis. It will certainly mean something, although not conclusive.

            Thank you and best regards,

            Efthimios

            Efthimios,

            The ingenuous Lieu and Hillman paper you cited proves that there is no evidence for Planck-scale fluctuations in time and space. So far so good, but then it uses that result to say the ether does not exist. This is a very weak conclusion hinging on the assumptions that probabilistic effects are an inherent property of nature and not merely the result of macroscopic measurements and theoretical interpretation of what may be a very different physical reality at the Planck-scale, presumably the ether granularity level. I have suggested in my my original 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which I based the fqxi essay, how probability can emerge as diffusion within an exquisitely ordered ether. Such an ether may exist and not contradict Lieu's result.

            Atomic interference has been demonstrated, even for molecules, (which incidentally I now conclude in my above paper may be the result of the interference of the gravitational fields surrounding the particles). But how would that give any data for or against a much finer supposed granularity of space? It will be interesting to read the Italian paper if you find it thanks. BTW here is an interesting demonstration of moire patterns it may inspire something!

            Good luck. Vladimir

              Vladimir,

              I do not like to post more than one link usually so this is the response to Lieu's paper that attempts to rebut its claims:

              http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/591/2/L87/

              Besides the theory and the measurements, let us think about it in a more fundamental way:

              If spacetime is granular, then what is there between the grains? There must be something because if there is nothing, then space is not granular.

              If space is granular, then it is a virtual space.

              Disproving the granularity of space is equivalent to preserving the autonomy of the world. In my opinion, it is now too late for that.

              Cheers.

              • [deleted]

              Dear Sir,

              We are amused by your joke.

              Millions of people have "seen" mirages. If we describe the truth about it, we are not wrong. The description of the desert, the water and the illusion that appears as water are all correct and real. It is only the misconception of those who believe that it is full of water, that is wrong. If someone wants to belief in the reality of mirage water, we can only advise him to go to that spot and find the truth for himself. We cannot help if someone regards superstition as more scientific than the results of physical experiments.

              We hope you will enjoy this joke.

              Regards,

              basudeba.

              • [deleted]

              Efthimios,

              The point I was trying to make is that the halting probability of a program with choices among a continuous range of variable values is zero. That's the difference between the sign and the - sign in Popper's hypothesis testing criteria.

              So even if your program is a finite state (Turing) machine with infinite processing capacity, there is no possibility that any finite state will return a discrete result from that continuous range of variable values in a bounded length of time even if the bound is infinity. In Popper's example, the reformulation of the twin primes conjecture, there is no possibility that at least one natural number, y, will not be prime given the terms x y and (2 x) y, because twin primes by definition are sums of successive primes, mod 2. Therefore, x y and (2 x) y are the same thing in this context -- there will always be a sum of successive odd primes, mod 2, whether the pairs are twins or not. We're not concerned with sorting twin primes from all other pairs, only with the characteristic that defines them, and we can't use that characteristic to prove that twin primes are infinite, because we already know by Euclid's proof that the prime sequence is infinite.

              The potential proof of the Goldbach conjecture, on the other hand, is not bounded at infinity. We don't know beforehand (as we do with Euclid's proof) that an infinite number of prime pairs (P > 2) sum to an even integer -- that's what we're asked to prove. So why don't we use Goldbach to test our halting hypothesis? Problem is, as I showed in my ICCS 2006 paper, that even though the conjecture, as Popper established, is of the same kind as the twin primes conjecture, we have a pseudo-continuous range of variable values in the field of natural numbers R; i.e., R is of the same cardinality as the infinite prime sequence. The problem input is not bounded at infinity (it is algorithmically compressed), yet the output is. That's what makes the case mathematically interesting because the finite state maps to the infinite sequence, unlike the case of twin primes in which infinite sequence maps to infinite sequence (that is, both input and output are bounded at infinity in the sense that there is no sign change).

              I presented (ICCS) an existence proof of a weakened Goldbach conjecture that removes the problem to a complex Hilbert space. The C* algebra is closed, giving us all the arithmetic functions we would use on R, plus the added dimension we need to establish a kind of congruence (mod 2) between complex numbers with zero imaginary part and the geometric nature of C as Euler described it. The proof could only be made constructive by quantum computing, because the domain would obviate the time dependence of purely classical computation, without sacrificing the continuous range of variable values.

              See if you can get an expert in quantum computing to agree that a polynomial time solution is possible using this strategy and you might get the falsifiable experiment you seek. Obviously, I would be intersted in the outcome.

              Good luck!

              Tom