Reality Is Analogue: It Exists in the Flow of Time and Space. by James Lee Hoover

Dear Jim,

I have just finished your essay and must say it was enjoyable. Your essay has a poetic quality missing in most of the entries. One of my favorite lines:

"The long waves of cosmic truth appear to wash upon our shores like an almost 14 billion year old ejection of a super-volcano, the ultimate eruption models calls the Big Bang, this being our way of explaining the phantom forces that still echo in our observatories of earth and near-space. But even the microwave image of the cosmic background reveals a curtain covering the Big Bang"s origin."

This one paragraph carries considerable weight. I hope you enjoyed my essay as much, as I would agree we have similar interests.

Best Regards,

Dan

Jim your essay posed an interesting argument in support of reality being Analogue in nature.

It was easy to read. You did not over burden the reader with excessive speculations regarding symmetries, string theory, etc. There seemed to be enough discussion of digital events to support your argument.

It is of course difficult to describe Analogue reality since, it is by nature complicated and can not be easily modeled.

The essence of what I derived from your essay follows, is simplistically stated and may be off base:

"Can Analogue reality be thought of as Time? As Time smoothly flows, it encompasses a multidimensional digital reality composed of all digital occurrences occurring within the Analogue reality at any given point in time. These occurrences involve all digital processes and properties of space, matter and energy."

I think your essay presents rational arguments that are at the very least on par with other essays I have read.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your kind comments in my forum.

You're in good company. As Einstein said, "I'd like to think that the moon still exists even when no one is looking at it."

Nice read. I like the historical breadth of your essay, which adds much interest. Good luck in the contest.

All best,

Tom

Jim,

I wouldn't invest all the importance of this contest in the rankings. Like everyone else I would like to make the cut, but I accept that there will be many deserving essays that don't, and probably some undeserving ones that do. I think you are going to see some radical changes in the standings by Tuesday, anyway.

The essay forum is still a great oppportunity to get your work before a lot of influential folks in the physics community, no matter the prizewinning outcome.

Tom

Dear Jim,

You and I seem to agree on many controversial points.

I agree with a Multiverse that is so large (possibly infinite?) that we can't observe it all because of our speed of light scale limit, and a finite age for our Observable Universe "locality".

I agree with Supersymmetry - Fermions and Bosons are fundamentally different enough that we need SUSY to combine these concepts into a single TOE (if such exists!).

I like to play with models. If one seems to work, then I keep building on it. If one obviously fails, then I put it aside (for another application later?).

You mentioned that String theory is analog, and this certainly agrees with classical wave theory (a traveling wave on a string), but I think that these strings may also have discrete modes of vibration (like the frequencies of a piano string) that may behave quantum-like (I think that Philip Gibbs and Lawrence Crowell have been having such a discussion on Lawrence's blog site). This ties into a wierd quantum-classical behavior of strings and Philip Gibbs Qubits of Strings. In my models, the end of the string may behave like a site in a discrete lattice.

The BB and BH's seem to be two different sides (bringing forth new life vs. melting down death and decay) of the same coin (singularity). I don't think that a singularity can exist in a finite Universe, therefore the BB must be part of the Multiverse, and BH's must not be "infinite vacuum cleaners". In my blog thread, I have proposed ideas and geometries that may prevent the BH from becoming a true singularity.

You suggested that large BH's may swallow smaller BH's until - ultimately - our observable Universe consists of a single Super BH. I don't know... It is true that gravitational fields effectively stretch out towards an infinite range (falling off as inverse-distance-squared), but it would be difficult (if not impossible once spacetime has collapsed to a point?) for a large BH to move a smaller BH.

Your essay was very readable.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Jim,

I just realized that I had not commented on your thread, although I had responded to your comment on mine [which I interpreted as a compliment!]

You say: "Most models are digital representations of analog events." We are in agreement on this and that the universe is analog. Many of the essays here are of the opinion that the universe is a digital computer, but if it is to be considered a computer, I believe it is an analog computer. Digital computers are programmed with ones and zeros, stored and retrieved from somewhere, but analog computers are made of real physical components and are 'programmed' by connections.

But the most basic analog physical entity is a 'field', and, as Ray states above, "It is true that gravitational fields effectively stretch out towards an infinite range..." so this means that the analog computer essentially extends over the entire universe. And the essence of such a field is its 'connectivity', which is essentially what General Relativity is all about.

As I remarked to you on my thread, "I begin with a conjecture that only one thing exists in the 'beginning' and that seems to imply a field (which is almost by definition analog.) The logical development of this conjecture leads to a 'threshold' or 'universal constant' and it is this that allows the separation of the universe into two categories, 'above' and 'below' the threshold, and this supports the evolution of 'form' inside the universe, which continues to 'in-form' reality until we reach the universe that you describe in your essay, a reality that "vibrates with life".

So thanks again for reading and commenting on my essay, and thanks for coming down on the side of analogue reality.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear James

I enjoyed the unhurried and poetic pace of your essay, based as it was on well-considered and relevant issues in physics and - I am not sure if I am right in labeling it thus - philosophy.

We may not differ so much about our definition of reality as you implied in your note on my essay. You seem to feel there is an absolute reality out there independent of human observers. That is exactly what the physics part of my paper implies - an absolute universe but different observers see it differently. This is the opposite of Einstein's SR whereby he posited that observation is absolute (the speed of light) but the universe (space and time dimensions) are relative and dependent on inertial frame speed.

Best wishes from Vladimir

Hi Jim,

I was thinking more about the large BH swallowing the small BH. I think that this may be a quantum tunnelling event. It could potentially disrupt spacetime enough to cause something like a white hole. You might bounce the idea off of Lawrence Crowell.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi James,

I thank you for readingmy essay, you asked the connection between singularities of the big bang and massive black holes, though it is a question taht also touches your essay I will give you the post also here :

quote:

Dear James,

In fact I came to my idea of the ultimate limits of our 4-d Universe while studying articles about what happened before the big bang, there we encounter the Planck Scale, after that nothing is anymore measurable , you enter the Multiverse (like in the Kaluza-Klein proposition and Calabi-Yau, only my approach is not mathematical because I think we cannot describe a "fifth" dimension with the senses and means we have available), the singularity of the so called BB is no longer present it becomes a point in the Multiverse.

I applied the same reasoning to a black hole, for there also we have to approach the untill now accepted singularity, but there we will meet the same problem of the Planck Scale (perhaps gravity becomes as strong as other forces, and infact GR predicts : any experiment with enough energy to probe the Planck Lenght must nececerrily form a black hole in the process (FQXi Blogs : Topic : The planck Scale : Gravity's ultimate limit, blogger Mark Wyman))

In fact we meet at every point (not only the high energy points in black holes) in sace/time the Planck scale, so our Universe surrounds or forms a hologram around or in this what I call Quintessence.

So the connection is clear it is a full yes but not only for the supermassive Black Holes but for every quantum in our Universe.

Yes Jim, the what you call "recycling" is a process that is infinitely taking place in the Multiverse (Quintessence), once after the Planck length we enter there where there is no more causality no more determination, time is no more like an arrow, every moment existing in our 4-d Universe originates from there, here it will "Pass", there it is "eternal?". The what you call Big Bang is a timeless happening (moment). Perhaps the word recycling is not right and do we have to back to Hermes Trismegistus who wrote already in his Emerald Tablet : "The Formation of the Microcosm is in the accordance with the Macrocosm", on the lowest scale you meet the highest scale, apply this to the eternal time moments of the Quintessence et voilà...

If you dare to think a little further then you can solve a lot of questions by applying this view, but I know it is only one of the bunch and the real Truth is I thinnk not to find here.

I also read your essay, which is very readable, on page 5 you yourself also give the border of our Universe and the follow up is going to the Big Bang and the SMBH, the analog site of our Universe that gives the idea of continuum, in my opinion is caused by our consciousness, a consciousness that is able to handle infinities that in our 4-d world can not exist because of the limits we live in (see posts above).

So Jim thanks for your attention , enjoy and Good Luck in the contest.

Wilhelmus.

unquote.

So you see that in my opinion like that of Ray Munroe, singularities cannot exist in our 4-d finite world , as also mentioned I liked very much the very readable text you produces with here and there some poetry, a very good read , you showed (like me) that formula's (another form of poetry) are not always needed to explain ourselves.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

"We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".

Regards,

Basudeba.