• [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.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #144

        Dear QSA,

        Why I arrived at conclusion that your theory is good for games? You write: ''Gravity also appears with surprising results, it shows that gravity becomes repulsive when distance is great or when distance is very small''. Gravity cannot have such properties. Besides, in order to create the computer model of gravitation you must know first the nature of gravitation and inertia. Do you know the nature of gravitation, inertia and spacetime? How can you model the curvature of spacetime if you do not know the nature of spacetime? Besides, even if the programs of simulation of gravity may exist, it does not mean that the Nature use your software. Can you show me the computer that processes the gravity and the motion of your body? In other words it, is a FANTASY only.

        Besides, how can you model the Heisenberg uncertainty if you do not know the complete quantum information about position and momentum? You cannot know this information by definition because it is forbidden by Quantum Mechanics; therefore such computer theory is good for games only.

        Constantin

        • [deleted]

        • Post #145

        Dear Canstantin,

        Thank you for your reply, much appreciated. As for gravity, it is known that GR cannot predict short distance(high energy) behavior and that is all the fuss about QG, also, for large distances galaxy rotations and expantion of the universe is not predicted by GR ,only with the tweaking using CC is done in a very unnatural way. Moreover, Gravity has been reinterpreted in other ways like theentropy picture and so spacetime curvture is not the only way, however I do agree that these pictures must be made to match.

        But there is a problem in the mid range in my theory where it does predict attraction but the potential is quadratic, I have to sort this thing out.

        Otherwise QM and QFT(as related to the 1/r law) perfectly match which confirms these theories from a diffrent prespective and what ever applies to them applies to my theory.

        AS for Reality's computer here lies the bueaty of my theory. Once you assume it as a postulate(that numbers and some relationship is the only thing that is real) then that leads to the design of the algorithm as shown which produces the above results. That is how science works , if your assumptions lead to good results then that means they make good sense and valid.

        It is needless to say that my theory and the rest here are one man show to find alturnative explaination, you can call them toy models since they are obviously not fully devoloped, but NEVER a game.

        Dear John,

        Thanks. I will read with care your essay, the abstract looks sound and interesting.

        Thanks.

        I'd like to summarize my view in a few paragraphs, if that is possible from an already synthesized essay:

        My view aims to provide a purely informational explanation to the organized structures in the world that we can find all over around, from the formation of galaxies to the appearance of an organized phenomenon such as life, despite the 2nd. law of thermodynamics predicting, with its principle of increasing entropy, rather the contrary, contradiction that is usually explained by arguments concerning closed systems regarded as exceptions that manage to locally decrease entropy while increasing entropy in its surroundings.

        Two tools from the theory of algorithmic information are relevant to explain this presence of organized structures in the world, without necessarily violating thermodynamic principles but actually providing a reasonable explanation to this phenomena (i.e. the entropy derivation vs. the presence of organized structures), with the only assumption that what happens in the universe is the result of the application of rules (that layer after layer may look very complicated but are simple in their origin because are of the kind that can be carried out by digital computers). Then both the theory of algorithmic probability with its concept of Levin's universal distribution and Bennett's logical depth provide an explanation to the organized universe in which we seem to live, as a result of time in the universe rather seen as computational time.

        As I argue, the view that the world is algorithmic in the terms described above is supported by, at least, two indicators: one is the compressibility of data in our world as it turns out to be the case as proven by the success in compressing data (either in digital or analog repositories). Not only data, but physical laws governing our reality have turned out to be compressible by models and formulae that scientists use to shortcut physical phenomena to make predictions about the world. The second indicator, supporting the algorithmic view, is the distribution of patterns in our world when compared (as we did) to the distribution of patterns produced by purely algorithmic worlds (by using abstract machines).

        We do not necessarily jump to the conclusion that the world is digital but we do claim that the kind of rules producing these kind of distributions can be carried out by digital computation and therefore, according to this hypothesis, there is no need to assume an analog universe when it is about to explain the organization in the world since assuming an analog universe would be regarded under this view as an unnecessary complication of the theory. Yet, this algorithmic view, doesn't rule out the possibility of an analog algorithmic world.