Thinking \"Outside the Box\" by Anthony DiCarlo

Dear Anthony DiCarlo,

Very imaginative and well presented.

Key to the model seems to be "If you believe that the Holographic Principle [of string theory] is correct [and no] information is ever lost."

Because the exact same area relation for a black hole can be obtained when the problem is formulated in terms of energy, with absolutely no mention of the concept of information, there seems to be no need for believing in the Holographic Principle, let alone in 'strings' that reach the boundary. And the idea that "no information is ever lost" is of recent origin [or at least recent focus] and is simply another 'belief' added to the many strange beliefs that physicists have been acquiring as of late. You yourself state that we are required "to maintain the belief that no information is ever lost."

Nevertheless, given your basic assumptions, you have done an excellent job and written an entertaining essay. Your creation and use of [one axis of] "the box" in photographic form is masterful.

All of our models or theories require a basic belief in something, and you have spelled out clearly what is necessary to believe in this model, and done a first class job in presenting the consequences of such belief.

Your two illustrations are magnificently done!

Congratulations, and best of luck in this contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Thanks for wishing me luck on the contest, but, I do not believe in luck, and, I care less about any contest! I actually believe "to the core of my being" in the holographic principal. I only placed the air of uncertainty out there for those that have not come to grips with its profound implications for information "transfer in time" physical mechanisms .... embedded images for one. In working in industry for many years, I realized that any new concept as such needed to be proven before accepted. I have been entrigued by the "show me don't tell me" attitude by those engineers I work side-by-side with everyday. Albert shows you quite plainly how information is stored in time, and, I hope the extension to quantum wasn't such a drastic process as to it not being physically recognized as the Fourier, Kramers Kronig process's in action ... again, just a representation for information being stored in time.

As an aside, my dad recently had a very severe stroke that killed the RHS of his brain. God allowed me to be by his side for many days thereafer watching and testing his progress. There is no doubt in my mind that the distruction of the RHS of his brain caused the LHS of his connection to our world to simply disappear. NO DOUBT! This, along with MANY other observations of him led me to firmly believe that his LHS of conciousness was tied physically to the physical RHS region of his brain. It was as if he originally operated from two sheets but after the stroke, was missing one (anti-desitter). This is why the conciousness/physical attachment to the world was added to the essay. My dads LHS information cruncher was gone!

Best regards,

Tony

Tony,

I am very sorry to hear about your Dad. My Mother suffered the same misfortune so I know of what you speak. In that regard, I have mentioned to others a book that you may or may not know of, "My Stroke of Insight", by Jill Bolte Taylor, a Harvard neuro-anatomist, telling of her massive stroke:

"..consciousness soared into an all-knowingness, a 'being at one' with the universe... The boundaries of my earth body dissolved and I melted into the universe." "I understood that, at the most elementary level, I am a fluid." "our perception of the external world, and our relation to it is a product of our neurological circuitry. For all those years of my life, I really had been a figment of my own imagination."

I would think that, based on your unfortunate experience, you might find interesting what a neuro-anatomist experienced while undergoing a massive stroke. It took her eight years of rehab and recovery to tell us about it.

As for the 'good luck', it was just a formality, don't sweat it.

You are admirably honest to say: "I actually believe "to the core of my being" in the holographic principal." Because it is a belief, for which I see no basis. And I am quite concerned about consciousness and have been for 50 years. My previous essay Fundamental Physics of Consciousness may suggest another perspective, if you are interested. From what you say, you don't appear open to any other view, but if you are only recently focused on consciousness, you might wish to give it some time before deciding upon the answer.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Thanks for your kind words, they were much appreciated. I have read your article "Fundamental Physics of Conciousness." It was very nice to hear your views. How I came to hone in on conciousness was actually quite accidental, in fact, I believe I can say that there was no other alternative to describe what was being alluded to. Having all our physical senses controlled by electromagnetic phenomena (includes nerve signals, ionic density gradients, sight, sound, etc) places E&M type of phenomena at the "interface" of our physical connection to the world. At this interface, if you look one way you see into human conciousness, and the other, the Zeta space surrounding you.

Also, to your original post, you stated:

"Because the exact same area relation for a black hole can be obtained when the problem is formulated in terms of energy, with absolutely no mention of the concept of information, there seems to be no need for believing in the Holographic Principle, let alone in 'strings' that reach the boundary." The information I discussed was simply energy in disguise, and this was alluded to by my statement "This implies that if we maintain the belief that no information is ever lost, we allow all the conservation laws in physics to hold for this classical, nested image information surface as it locks itself away into an exact arrangement of quantum states extended through time." Conservation of energy fits right in.

Thanks again - I greatly appreciated your feedback!

Tony

Edwin,

A second thanks for your suggestion for me to listen to Jill (you really have to love internet video!). Courage, enlightenment, conviction ... at a time when her physical interface to conciousness was disrupted.

Tony

.....as for the comment "I care less about any contest!" stated above. A contest generally has winners and losers. This "essay event" has no losers and therefore does not fit "contest" criteria. This is a win/win forum for everyone that seeks the sigma of the foundational ideas of others. Cheers to the hosts!!

Mr. DiCarlo

I really enjoyed reading your essay. I consider myself somewhat of a physics/philosophy buff but I do not have the formal education that would allow me to get the full jist of the many ideas that are being discussed in this great contest. Yours was different, you did a great job of explaining to the novice. Your use of visuals was of real value for me to understand your idea.

Many of the old masters of both physics and philosophy had the same ultimate goal, to know the mind of God. You have convinced me that the past is physically recorded in reality. It is also my understanding that in most mathematical models the arrow of time can go in two directions. In philosophy the dominant view is that God is temporal but everlasting; that is, God never began to exist and he never will go out of existence. He exists at each moment in time. I believe I understand the out side the box theory of how God/natures knows the truth of each moment, present to past in discreet moments in time NOW and this bring me closer to understanding the true nature of God and time.

If you dont mind, a question for you; Do you think there is a similar mathematical idea that allows for the intelligence of the universe to know the future from present to eternity based on calculations of the mirrored 1s and 0s that make up our apparent reality?

Best Regards, John Okichich

John,

Thanks for your comments. It is nice to see that you have incorporated a "reflection" concept into your philosophy. Basic human interactions involve having a projected attitude that is projected on to others, then, "reflects" and comes full circle back to you (coming from them) at periodic future times. A "you put out what you get back" rule to human interaction - which we all know has merit. This same general rule becomes equal and opposite forces on the "Newtonian" level... you get back the exact magnitude of what you put out... force in this case ... which is actually multiple reflections of virtual photons ... which is again reflection at its core.

As for future predictions from ones and zeros ... science can only unravel the next level of predictable truth, there is always another level of predictability above this.... then above this... etc. Consider this:

A tree in the fall season brings its sap down into its roots for winter survival. Unknown to the tree, a sidewalk will be built in the winter and placed immediately above a major surface root in where the tree will store its sap. The root is cut and the tree dies in the spring due to the severe loss of nutrients stored in the sap on the surface root that was to resurrect it in the spring. If the tree had known in advance that one of its major roots was to be cut, it may have redistributed its sap amongst the roots that would remain after sidewalk construction.

Therefore, if the tree had more information regarding what the humans were going to do, it could have prepared for the inevitable future of having the root cut. This implies a higher level of intelligence is required by the tree to better prepare for what was an inevitable future. But was it inevitable? If the humans that were to build the sidewalk didn't realize that the weather would not permit them to build the sidewalk because of the extra cold winter conditions, the humans would need to know information about the weather to know whether they will build the sidewalk. Therefore, the tree would also need to know that the winter would be too cold for the humans to build the sidewalk and this information would provide the tree an even better idea of its fate in the future. This goes on and on, and, the tree will never have all the information, but, you can bet that it could secure a more promising future by gaining more knowledge.

This is the same way science works, we need an endless trail of information, starting off with the most important information (first order) then slowly including all the higher levels of information as more knowledge is gained in time. More information promotes a more accurate prediction of the future. This is one of the major goals in science. It is a limiting process that cannot be fully achieved, but, we can keep getting closer and closer.

Thanks,

Tony

Tony,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I believe, like John Templeton, that science and religion must continue to find common ground. Faith has played a major roll in my life, as much as logic and reason.

Science has given most of us a higher standard of living and my faith has given me great peace of mind. I do not wish to give up ether. I see and feel God in nature and all living things. Both science and religion have the same goals, to understand reality, to know the mind of God and Gods will for us. I find your out of the box idea consistent with what modern philosophers and theologians think about God and time.

I read the article in Nature in which FQXis director Anthony Aguirre discusses how the Templeton foundation grants helped start the Foundational Questions Institute. I agree whole heartedly. The enlightenment, started hundreds of years ago has to continue to move forward. Religion has always been a large part of the human experience in almost every culture and still is today, especially in the U.S. Personally when I contemplate nature I have a feeling of great presents and piece of mind. When I read article in science publications and I am able to understand I get the same feeling. Science will never discredit faith; they are both in our DNA. Faith and logic make up the mind of modern man. Your idea rings true to me on both fronts

Thank again,

John

John,

Building a "theory of everything" will almost certainly require "faith" and "logic." You must hold firm on one underlying concept while logically connecting "everything else" to it (and YES, you could be wrong, but, you must convict yourself to your beliefs with no doubts). We all do this in one form or another, and is believed one type of logical function behavior of the brain ... compare/contrast images (our senses) in space over time. I envision a theory of everything as being a theory that is so obvious that beauty will be observed in the eyes of everyone who willfully chooses to comprehend it. This implies that the basic model that outlines the fundamental simplicity of the theory can be appreciated by everyone - this is Grand and Unified! This also implies that because the fundamental physics of human interaction with the universe will emerge in this theory, human logic MUST resonate with it.... afterall.... it represents the root physical impedance connect to the universe to which we are all plugged in..... a physical parable....

My essay is basically an essay based from the most fundamental interaction in nature, reflection. Take this fundamental interaction and couple it to the most fundamental bit of information in a "Shannon fashion" and you're good to go. The images are the "gauge field" that carry information through time. Gauge theory gravity was a great achievement in showing how these images, that reside on surfaces (the spin bivector), thread themselves through time. All the information we can ever hope to gain will always be associated with a surface!

Jingle bells, Jingle bells IMAGES all the way!!! (all the way back in time!)

Best Regards,

Tony

Dear Anthony,

Your search for a "Theory of Everything" is commendable and deserves serious consideration. In my essay I take a different approach to the same ultimate goal. By starting with an undefined (and undefinable) 'prime physis quantity eta', I show how we can mathematically derive Basic Law in Physics. And since 'eta' is undefined, all the mathematical results can be applied in any other context. This leads to a "Theory of Everything".

Among the many results in my essay I show that Planck's Law can be mathematically derived in this way -- continuously and without using such physical assumptions as 'energy quanta'. In my essay, Planck's Law is shown to be actually a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It is a mathematical identity (like the Pythagorean Theorem) that shows how E and ΔE are related for constant T. This explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

More recently, I posted a mathematical proof of the following proposition, "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave".

All these results are iconoclastic and mathematically argued. I need your support to bring these before the panel of experts for serious review, as I feel your essay deserves the same consideration. With mutual support we can promote the cause of science.

all the best,

Constantinos

Constantinos,

Thanks for your reply.

My only hope is to be capable of appreciating a Theory of Everything, but, I personally believe that NO theory will ever contain everything, just a higher precision level of physical comprehension and prediction. Anyone who claims they know everything will ultimately fail.... happens all the time.

I have read your essay, and, I must admit that I need time to digest it (even you stated "every physical process takes time to occur" - I agree, and, my comprehension/time gets very small when mathematics enters the picture!) This is why my essay builds the physical world of all past information with images only. We can see them, and, it's a simple, visual concept. In my line of work ... simpler is not only better, it's survival if you need to get others on board w/ your ideas.

Your essay took me on a trip down statistical ensemble thermodynamics, but, I can't yet see clear contrast on where your idea differs from what is currently accepted, although, I do, to some extent, see where you are going w.r.t. measurement ... I'll re-read it to see if I can get more neurons to resonate with your statements.

Thanks,

Tony DiCarlo

Tony,

I fully concur with your statement that any attempt to know 'everything' will ultimately fail! The way I like to phrase it in my essay is that we cannot know 'what is' but only our measurements and our experiences of 'what is'. I see current 'mathematical models' of the Universe as 'metaphysical' in that they seek to know 'what is'. Like you, I also claim that all such efforts ultimately fail. We are in total agreement on this.

But there is another way of understanding a "Theory of Everything". And that is, a theory or conceptual framework that can be applied to everything! This is what I have in mind. This is very different than the usual meaning. My formulation as sketched in my essay is entirely mathematical with just the 'prime physis quantity eta' connecting the results to physics. But this quantity is left undefined and undefinable. Therefore the same formulation of results can be applied to any other context where 'distance', 'time' and 'eta' can be given meaning. One way of thinking about 'eta' is as 'being'.

You write, "Your essay took me on a trip down statistical ensemble thermodynamics". Nothing in my essay involves statistics or 'energy quanta'. In fact, I claim that physics can be reformulated without such physical view and mathematical formulation. I show how Planck's Law for blackbody radiation, for example, can be very easily derived without physical assumptions like energy quanta. This Law I show is a mathematical result applied to physics, in the same way that the Pythagorean Theorem can be applied to physics. All my work is very different from everything that is currently accepted! I explicitly am against a formulation of Physics based on mathematical models. Rather, I feel that the mathematical foundations of physics should be mathematical identities that pertain to measurement - like the Pythagorean Theorem and Planck's Law as I show in my essay.

One more example: In my recently posted note I show the Constant Speed of Light contradicts the Photon Hypothesis! "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave".

I do hope you can support my efforts in these waning hours to have these results reviewed by the panel of experts.

Best wishes,

Constantinos