Constantin,

Thanks for your comments. I find difficult to address your arguments agains my essay one by one because I think there is a misreading from your part at several levels but I will do my best to address some of the most fundamental.

I can say, as I said before, that nothing in my essay is pretending to be a mathematical (or even physical) proof, it is statistical evidence in favor of a personal worldview (and an original research as acknowledged by my peers upon publication of my work in books and journals). I'd also like to tell, again, that I'm not even jumping to the conclusion that the world is digital but rather algorithmic, the reader can then jump to the digital hypothesis using Occam's razor, if they wish.

I think I also clarified that my definition of the continuum is limited and I can acknowledge that you make a fair point, it is as limited as it was the space to talk about it in this contest. I could unpack more about the continuos case, but my main concern and what I stand for is that there is not even a general agreement of what continuity might be, while for the digital case the consensus is almost unanimous, both intuitively and formally in some extent.

Concerning whether an elementary particle carries information, you say it carries its mass, size and so on. I do not agree, a particle may have these properties only when interpreted from outside, a particle only has mass when measured related to other matter, it has a location only when fixing an external framework, and it has a size only when compared to other things. The particle by itself, from my point of view, does not store any of these parameters in itself, and it is only when interacting with others that this information is possible chaining itself into other processes (this makes more sense if seen under my algorithmic view, because it is processes that gives the algorithmic sense to the world in my view).

I see you are re-using your argument against Tommaso Bolognesi's essay regarding your claim that "At the center of a black hole lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. Thus, at the center of a black hole a digital computation is not possible because spacetime curvature becomes infinite." From it I guess it is you who claims to hold a proof that the world is analog, or at least that it is not discreet. Unfortunately, I don;t think the claim will convince most researchers, including me, simply because not knowing what happens inside a black hole doesn't rule out anything, but specially because physics as we know them are also inapplicable inside a black hole and scientists do not throw their theories away. But again, I'm not even standing strongly in favor of the digital hypothesis as I'm doing for the algorithmic case.

Finally, most if not all of my essay is based in hard science, particularly the mathematical theory of information and computation, except for my particular worldview that this contest is encouraging people to share with others to trigger interesting discussions.

I find difficult to argue against claims such as: "There are advanced theories supported by nobody because all money is absorbed by false theories [link inserted to your own work]. The human race will NOT survive the next thousand years without teleportation and true Science."

I will let others judge by themselves, but it is always a risk to tag science as 'true' science, specially when arguing against someone else theories in favor of yours.

Thanks for sharing.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #125

Hi all, interesting dear thinkers, interesting.Here is my humble point of vue about our realism and its deterministic continuity where the reals and our laws are respected.

Equivalencies will always be limited to what is the definition of a human creation. Intelligence is the pure result of a biological evolution. The mass, volume, its quantum numbers are accurate and specific,finite and precise. The mass increases....entropy and its cooling,you shall understand the mass and the light, purelly the samee. How would you reach this number of biological particles arranged since the beginning of physicality. The convergences are inrestings algorithmic applications. But We must under no circumstances wait autonomy of these supposed future intelligent machines. The only intelligence is by the hand and brain that is a result from a biological evolution and quantification of its mass. It is a tool of evolution, as is mathematics simply.In fact these computers aren't autonom , they need humans .....If you take the minearals for example......it's totally different in their pure numbers than biological entanglement of particles, quantics and evolved by fusion mass light in time space evolution in 3dimensions.The waves are relevant and are a tool also....Don't forget if already the intelligence has been created after so many years, you shall understand that it's difficult to create an intelligent biological creation, and thus you shall understand that the time is important...thus 2 main problems dear computers men , 2 impossibilities you can't create a biological intelligence in a so short moment, compared with the universal scale....and second the mineralSi or others are different than biological systems....thus humans, maths, computings, waves......TOOLS. Intelligence also thus let's be serious a little please hihihi

Best Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #126

Dear Zenil,

I repeat my post in Mr. Shing's blog ,but add that my theory is 100% information based, random(the main point) and algorithmic since I implement it using a computer program.

I was so happy to read your essay since it is very much related to my own theory:

http://www.qsa.netne.net

qsa

I think all the ideas of John Benavides , Tommaso Bolognesi ,D'Ariano, Zenil and few other are very much related. my website has not been updated, but here is the abstract of my upcoming paper.

In this letter I derive the laws of nature from the hypothesis that "Nature is made out of mathematics, literally". I present a method to design a universe using simple rules which turns out to have the properties similar to our reality. Particles are modeled as end of lines, one end is confined to a small region and the other goes to allover the universe. The Coulomb force (when lines cross) and gravity(when lines meet) appear naturally and they are two aspects of one process involving the interaction of these lines, and then by calculating the expectation values for positions. I am able to calculate what appears to be the Fine-structure constant. Gravity also appears with surprising results, it shows that gravity becomes repulsive when distance is great or when distance is very small. At this time I have only done 1D full simulation with interaction and 2D and 3D and indeed nD without interaction. I am working on 2D interaction now and already showing very surprising results. I can see a hint of the strong and the electroweak force. Time and space could be looked upon as derived quantities. I show that not only nature is discrete but also mathematics, since dx can only approach zero but it never is zero. In my model the ultimate irony is that our reality came about because there is only one way to design a dynamic universe and that only one allowed our existence. I guess you could say fortunately or unfortunately depending on how one's .

  • [deleted]

  • Post #127

a list of the program in c++ for EM and gravity

// g.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.

//

#include

#include "stdafx.h"

#include

#include

#include

#include

//using std::cout;

#include

//using std::ios;

//using std::ofstream;

using namespace std;

// Global arrays

double S[951000];

double Po[951000];

double Lo[951000];

double Sy[951000];

double Poy[951000];

double Loy[951000];

double ex[500];

double ex1[500];

double fr[500];

int main() {

srand(time(0));

double i=0;

double g=0;

double frf;

double dist;

long l;

long d1;

long st1;

long d0;

long st0;

double f;

double f1;

double edx;

double edx1;

long m;

long p;

long li;

long p1;

long li1;

double en;

double alpha = 0.0;

double a1=0.0;

double a2=0.0;

double a3=0.0;

double avg=0;

double cn =0;

// double enf;

double intr;

l = 7000; // Universe size

d1 = 200; // Particle 1 size

d0 = d1; // Particle 2 size

double km = 20; // Setting the interval

double kj = 20000000; // # of random throws

intr = ((l)/((km*2.5)));

double d0div = d0 ;

cout

  • [deleted]

  • Post #128

Dear Dr. Hector Zenil,

The professional scientists often send fantastic essays to our contest just because this contest is encouraging people to share with others to trigger interesting discussions. We do not write holy papers so it needs revision. Thus, even if your essay may have errors, it is not a catastrophe.

1) You write: ''a particle may have these properties only when interpreted from outside, a particle only has mass when measured related to other matter''. a) There are huge, cold clouds of gas and dust in our own galaxy. These particles are very cold and practically do not interact one with another. Meanwhile these clouds have gravity that influences the motion of planets, stars and even galaxies. It is a proof that the particles have mass even if they do not interact with each other or measuring devices. Thus, your statement is wrong.

b) There is a huge number of neutrino which is able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected. Neutrino practically do not interact with matter but their gravitation influence the motion of planets, stars and even galaxies; It means they carry information about their mass even when they don't interact with matter.c) If you mean gravitational interaction, then your statement also is wrong - particles interact gravitationally always. Thus, since particles carry information (about mass) without interacting, your statement is erroneous: ''But at the lowest level, the most elementary particles, just like single bits (the Shannon Entropy of a single bit is 0), carry no information when they are not interacting with other particles''.

2) ''the universe is capable of performing digital computation''. This statement also is wrong; it contradicts quantum mechanics and Black Hole physics. The same error I found in T. Bolognesi's essay and you can see my arguments on his page.

3) ''the lossless compressibility of data is in any sense an indication of the discreteness of the world''. This statement is completely senseless as I shown in my above post.(Programmers may tell us about the nature of the Universe by performing an analysis of the compressibility of mp3 files).

''Finally, most if not all of my essay is based in hard science'' - it proves nothing; the SM is a mathematical model only that can compute only but explain nothing. Please try to explain inertia, mass and the curvature of spacetime by help of your ''hard science''. Your ''hard science'' may fall during next 10 - 20. Pay attention how many doubtful essays you see in our contest - the same situation is everywhere in the Physics. About 70 percents of theoretical papers in physics are wrong. An example is your theory based on ''hard science'' which contradicts quantum mechanics and Black Hole physics. If your theory is true then quantum mechanics and Black hole theories are wrong and vice versa. Since astronomers found evidence for Black Holes, but I don't see observable evidence for the algorithmic Universe, we conclude that your theory is false rather than first two theories.

Sincerely,

Constantin

  • [deleted]

  • Post #129

Dear Dr. Hector Zenil,

As community score leader please read my essay

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Constantin,

The universe is capable of digital computation because there are digital computers in it (you are typing on one). I don't see how could that be wrong. The question is therefore whether the universe _only_ computes at the digital level.

On the other hand, respected quantum scientists think that an algorithmic world is possible and compatible with quantum mechanics, e.g. Seth Lloyd. But as you say, if you deny mainstream science it will be difficult to argue against any of your arguments. You make interesting points but they could be read more easily if they weren't so categorical.

I don't see anywhere in my essay what you say I said on the compressibility of data as a direct proof of the discreteness of the world. What I wrote is "One may wonder whether the lossless compressibility of data is in any sense an indication of the discreteness of the world." then I make my case that it may be an indication, not a proof.

Concerning your Neutrino argument, we yet don't exactly know what particles, if any, may be responsible of what we identify as gravitation, so when you say that a neutrino is not interacting with anything else and take it as a proof against my claim (not a proof) that particles may not be able to carry any information, the argument is not that convincing.

The math on which my arguments are based on, won't be wrong in 10 or 20 years, what might be wrong is the connection I make between the math, its consequences, and the real world, but that is what the contest is about, yet I offer what I think is evidence in favor of the algorithmic nature of the world.

Thanks.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #131

Dear Hector Zenil

SImilar ideas about (objective) randomness has also Zeilinger. (And Neil Bates in this contests.) Maybe it is useful if you compare them with you. Otherwise, it is a clearly written essay.

Your essay is so good for me, that I used him twice for reference.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf

I was too late for this contests, so I am sending link here.

Regards

Dear Janko,

Interesting, thanks for your comments and for citing my essay. I shall read your paper in further detail.

As for Zeilinger, my position is similar to the opinions expressed in response to Zeilinger's in 'The Message of the Quantum?' by Daumer et al. (available online: http://www.maphy.uni-tuebingen.de/members/rotu/papers/zei.pdf). Zeilinger claims that quantum randomness is intrinsically indeterministic and that experiments violating Bell's inequality imply that some properties do not exist until measured. These claims are, however, based in a particular (yet mainstream) interpretation of quantum mechanics from which he jumps to conclusions relying on various no-go or no-hidden-variables theorems--of people such as von Neumann, Bell, Kochen and Specker)--which are supposed to show that quantum randomness is truly indeterminstic.

And although I share with Daumer et al. the belief that Wheeler did not shed much light on the issue with his rather obscure treatment of information as related to, or as more fundamental than, physics; I do not share Daumer et al. claims about what they think is wrong with the informational worldview. As they say, Wheeler remarkable suggestion was that physics is only about information or that the physical world itself is information. I rather think, however, that the next level of unification (after the unification of other previously unrelated concepts in science, such as electricity and magnetism, light and electromagnetism, and energy and mass, to mention a few) is between information and physics (and ultimately, as a consequence, to computation), as it has already started to be the case (e.g. between statistical mechanics with information theory).

No interpretation of quantum mechanics rules out the possibility of deterministic randomness even at the quantum level. Some colleagues, however, have some interesting results establishing that hidden variables theories may require many more resources in memory to keep up with known quantum phenomena. In other words hidden variable theories are more expensive to assume, and memory needed to simulate what happens in the quantum world grows as bad as it could be for certain deterministic machines. But still, that does not rule out other possibilities, not even the hidden variables theories, even if not efficient in traditional terms.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #133

Dear Hector

Here is also my attempt to explain quantum randomness.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/571

(Contest one year ago)

I think, that we need to explain all physics including Quantum gravity and consciousness. Now the quantum mechanics is not a complete theory.

We do not need hidden variables as additional parameters, but connections of known physical parameters should be clear and it is not yet.

So, I believe in quantum consciousness, and model for it is simple: additional very small elementary particles.

Regards

p.s I also write one not-speculative article:

http://vixra.org/abs/1012.0006

It is a base for my above mentioned article:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf

I hope to find someone to be endorser in arXiv.

Hector,

1) You write: ''a particle may have these properties only when interpreted from outside, a particle only has mass when measured related to other matter'' , 'But at the lowest level, the most elementary particles, just like single bits (the Shannon Entropy of a single bit is 0), carry no information when they are not interacting with other particles''.

Imagine a cloud of particles which does not interact and therefore, according to your essay, they do not have mass and do not carry information. Then you detect these particles, consequently all these particles suddenly get mass and begins to create gravity. It contradicts quantum mechanics, the measurement theory and energy conservation laws. The process of measurement cannot create energy/matter. Also, a lot of particles fly in the Universe without interacting. If these particles do not have mass without interaction then the mass of the universe must be very small; besides, the mass of the universe must fluctuate depending on the events of measurement/interaction. Thus, this statement is wrong and contradicts quantum mechanics and energy conservation laws.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Constantin,

Neither me nor most physicists believe in action at a distance in physics, perhaps because we are mind wired to believe in a causal world (which is most of my claim, that we live in an algorithmic rule-based world). Action at a distance was sometimes a common mistake some centuries ago when people thought, for example, that explanations about electromagnetic phenomena implied action at a distance among objects, meaning that nothing between happened but that things exchanged information somehow 'magically'. What we have witnessed with the help of science, however, is that everything seems connected to everything else in some sort or another, and scientific research has unveiled most of these connections in the form of unifications as I evoked before (e.g. light and electricity, or the movement of the planets and falling objects on Earth).

You continue assuming things that are not acknowledged by everyone (nor by most thinkers) and so I cannot really imagine a cloud of particles which does not interact with anything else, yet I never said that things don't have mass if they don't interact with anything else, but rather that mass as a magnitude (information) only makes sense when there is interaction with something else. Which seems to make perfect sense even in the equations (a body's mass determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by the gravitational field of another body).

For example, the current quark mass is a logical derivation from the mathematical formalism of Quantum field theory and not from a descriptive origin but as a result of an external calculation. At the end particles are regarded as excited states of a field so the interpretation of particle mass is only a partial description of the model itself. I'm not, evidently, an expert in quantum mechanics and my informational interpretation of quantum phenomena is only a little aside interpretation of my algorithmic view based in nothing else but the application of information theory to what I think is the equivalent of single bits in physics: elementary particles, if one wants to map them in a one to one relationship. This view has also the advantage of unifying one with the other instead of replacing one as more fundamental than the other, which has triggered much of the debate on whether matter/energy or information is more fundamental.

When you say "The process of measurement cannot create energy/matter", I may agree although, unlike you, I would need to think further about it. I think measurements generate or unveil hidden information, in what exact way the do, I do not yet know. I think claiming that 'a lot of particles fly in the Universe without interacting' is quite a bold statement. Modern physics bet on the contrary, that particles lie over something else. For example, string theory seems to suggest that particles 'touch' each other even if they seem not to do so, by way of having a greater dimension than what they seem to have, and somehow interacting in higher dimensions. The main assumption is that everything interacts with something else, and what I'm saying seems perfectly compatible with this, that if you isolate the smallest particle then it will not carry any information, perhaps not even of itself and therefore measurements lead to what we think are random values or spooky behaviors at that level of reality.

Thanks.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #136

Hector,

I read about you and your theory here: ''nature is seen as processing information computing the laws of physics and everything we see around us, including all sorts of complex things like life. In this view, the universe would be computing itself and our computers would betherefore doing nothing but reprograming a part of the universe to make it compute what we want to compute''.

To prove the ''algorithmic nature of the world'' you must explain first quantum mechanics and all forces including gravity by your algorithms and computation. I don't see today any algorithms for quantum mechanics and gravity in your papers, therefore this theory is a fantastic DREAM only. You'll never explain Heisenberg uncertainty by algorithms and computation because you must know the complete quantum information position-momentum BEFORE events occurs to process the motion of particle; this theory is forbidden by Quantum Mechanics and Black Hole physics. Since your Universe is algorithmic, you need a gigantic God-like computation able to run programs/algorithms for every particle and body.

Nature is really simple, but your theory insists on making it complicated - you need algorithms and computation for every particle. Where is this gigantic computer - outside of the Universe? This theory denies the Free Will - since the world is ruled by algorithms and computation, therefore all our future was programmed before we born. In this contest we are looking for theories able to SIMPLIFY the Nature but not to complicate the nature. It is one of the most fantastic theories that contradicts quantum mechanics, conservation laws, Black holes theories; it is surprising that people support such fantasy. Without algorithms and computation nature is very simple. It is a crime against Science to support the false theories.

Constantin

    Constantin,

    You came back to the very first arguments you presented before. I'm now convinced that the discussion will be fruitless if you persevere to claim to hold all true answers, which are commonly considered open questions in science.

    It seems you keep on misreading the essay at several levels. Just to stress again the main hypothesis of my worldview, I'm using what is called Levin's semi-mesure, this is a tool that has been called also the universal distribution (see Kirchherr and Vitanyi paper online: http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/papers/mathint97.ps) because it was proven (by Levin himself) that it dominates any other semi-computable measure. This tool also captures and formalizes Occam's razor, which as you may know is ill suited to complicate things because, by definition, it favors simplicity. My worldview is the simplest possible among the algorithmic explanations of the world. What I do is to calculate an experimental approximation of Levin's distribution and compare the result to the processes in the real-world, then I discuss the similarities and discrepancies. I don't need to explain what happens inside of black holes because not even current mainstream physics does, and it is beyond my current scope of research.

    As for the quantum phenomena, issues with black holes, the teleportation that you think is vital for humanity, and other claims of the same sort I invite you to re-read our previous messages.

    Thanks.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #138

    Hector,

    My theory can explain at least teleportation but your theory can explain NOTHING in physics. Your theory is a mathematical construct only and I wrote in this contest already that all mathematical proofs in physical papers must be in DOUBT. Usually mathematics is used as a shield to hide the false theories. First of all, to create a real Physical theory you must include just quantum phenomena, black holes and teleportation but not mathematical models.

    Your above answer is an attempt to suppress questions by a stream of senseless information. I read about your group and your paper ''On the algorithmic nature of the world'', it is the theory about the Computational nature of the Universe. Your friends like Janko Kokosar try to support you in order to create an illusion as if it is a very SCIENTIFIC paper.

    Dear readers it is a false theory forbidden by Quantum Mechanics and Black Hole theory. It is a crime to vote for false theories. We need the powerful Science and Technology to survive.

    Constantin

    Dear Hector Zenil,

    To me your essay is a bit too easily understandable written but not yet convincing. Perhaps, I am expecting too much from experts of computer science and probability like you. So far I do not see any chance how your rather speculative approach could become foundational. It reminds me of "in the beginning was the word" Big Bang = white noise, and then symmetry breaking made it flesh. What about other colors of noise, e.g. brown one?

    Why and how did symmetry breaking start just with hydrogen atoms?

    In the 2nd contest I made an unreplied comment to the essay by Steven Wolfram:

    I argued that while digital computing is superior to analog computers, the latter are closer to reality than differential equations. I meant they are bound to the real time and in particular its direction. You did not refer to this matter, and I guess why: Your procedures of computing tend to be also natural in that they perform a series of forward steps even in for ... do loops, never backward in time. You presumably overlooked this when you equated the time-symmetric laws of nature with computer programs.

    Regards,

    Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #140

      Dear Constantin,

      I do share your concern than ''algorithmic nature of the world'' has not been demonstrated convincingly so far. That is why I invite you to check out my website where I derive the laws of QM, QFT and QG just from such algorithm using a very simple program. The secret was in the postulate, everything else including the algorithmic way just followed naturally. The website has not been updated but I will send you the details if you are interested.

      http://www.qsa.netne.net

      • [deleted]

      • Post #141

      QSA

      Your theory is a good approach for computer games but not for reality:''Gravity also appears with surprising results, it shows that gravity becomes repulsive when distance is great or when distance is very small'', '' I have been toying with the idea (existence is nothing but mathematics) in my mind for years.''.

      Constantin

      Dear Hector

      You have written a very interesting essay. On my essay I propose an idea of how we can understand emergence on computation, that can be use to understand how a classical reality emerges from a quantum base. On my approach, We can introduce the computation information perspective, that you are proposing, and at the same time all the classical formalism. I would like to hear your opinions about it.

      Regards,

      J. Benavides.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #143

        Dear Constantin

        Please specify how/why you arrived at your conclusion that my theory is good for "games", since it is easy to see how I reproduce the results of QM in a natural way. I could make a catagorical (even more accurate) statement about your theory of being no more than one more "mechanical" theory that has been attempted by maybe thousends of people over the past 100 years. But I won't, because the purpose of fqxi is to explore all avenues. I myself have a million questions about my own theoy which you could have raised, but making catagorical statements without a hint of an evidence is poor science, and a crime at one's own attempt to analyse and understand.