Is Ultimate Reality Beyond Categorization as Analog or Digital? by Todd L Duncan

Hello Todd,

I liked your essay very much.

thanks

joseph markell

Dear Todd,

Your essay resonates with its questions. It seems there is still a hope that a true reality that produces atoms may be relatively simple in order to perform so reliably. Perhaps such a simple system could be modeled fully to the limits available to science. My essay explores such a model but with an important catch. It requires a hidden sustaining force to drive atoms like a motor. So you would still be right that there is another level, but I think something like this drops us out of the loop of looking for successively smaller things. Such an approach might offer a clear defining line of what is still undefined but allows us to make progress. A few other essays discuss along these lines, and I think the key is finding the right model that describes the true reality available to us in order for it to accurately explain and predict. The key for me is in finding that simple thing that drives it all.

Thanks for the thoughtful questions in your essay. Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Todd,

An insightful essay. Suffice to say any discipline composed of more than one individual will become formalized. It's up to the next generation to exploit the cracks in this structure in order to expand on it, or replace it. Think of it as bottom up energy, expanding out to form top down information, which serves to define the parameters of the energy. Much like radiation expands and mass contracts. Information is inherently static, while energy is inherently dynamic, yet they are two sides of the same coin.

Much like eastern and western philosophy are two sides of the same coin, as the west focuses on content and the east on context. I've wondered whether, if modern physics had evolved primarily in the east, it would be quite to focused on the particle as content. In the east, opposite elements don't cancel each other out, but give balance, depth, contextuality and dimension to a larger whole. The yin doesn't cancel the yang. The west, on the other hand, has a very monolithic view. Duality is wishy washy.

I wonder, with all these particle, waves, strings, if we are not missing some contextual connectivity simply because it doesn't have some nice solid objective form. One of the basic arguments I often make is that we look at time backwards. It's not that the present moves from past to future, but the changing configuration of what is that turns the future into the past. In making this point over the years, it's been pointed out to me that in eastern and in native American cultures, they view the past as in front of the observer and the future behind. This makes sense from an objective point of view, since an event occurs and it is then observed, but it raises the issue of why we tend to think of the future in front of us and it is due to conflating our own spatial motion with the larger sequencing of events in which we exist. In other words, we give precedence to the motion of the point of reference, ourselves, not the activity of the larger context. In that view, the observer is always moving against their larger context, rather than being part of the overall motion of this context.

The real irony of this individual vs. context perspective, is that it makes free will illogical, since we only exist at the point of the present and cannot change the past, or affect the future. Yet when we view time as an effect of that overall motion, then we do affect it, as it affects us.

Sorry for the rambling on, but your essay encourages a broad view and not a narrow, technical view.

Good Luck.

Hello Todd, I liked your common sense approach to the question in hand. Nice and easy to read with a good underlying message. Thanks for your essay.

Alan

Dear Todd,

I enjoyed your essay, and I find your thinking in harmony with my own, which leads me to offer these observations:

'As Carroll points out, the usual and obviously very fruitful approach in physics is to "model the world as a formal system, which is both unambiguous and complete as a description of reality." Carroll adds emphasis to this common view, with the statement, "Once we figure out the correct formal structure, patterns, boundary conditions, and interpretation, we have obtained a complete description of reality."'

Modeling is certainly what we do, whether in ordinary cognition or scientifically. This process, of modeling the world as a formal system, is what I call 'deductionism'. While a formal system may be complete in the logico-mathematical sense, it cannot represent reality completely--in the sense of a strict 1-1 correspondence--unless it happens that 'reality' is actually itself a formal system, an artifact. (As I point out in my own essay, this was indeed the belief of the first scientists, as good creationists!) In other words, if nature is real, and not virtual or artificial, it cannot be reduced to a formal system. Carrol's complete description of reality is a chimera, in the above sense of completeness. However, nature can be mistaken for a formal system. I believe this is the danger of deductionism, when it becomes a faith rather than a method, and when it is assumed that reality is not simply being modeled, but that it is a formal system.

Your point is well taken and well expressed, that the model has to live in the reality it models (or somewhere! I think there are a lot of Platonists out there for whom it lives in Platoland).

I think Gödel applies in a fairly strong sense, since the bottom line for incompleteness is a system that has the ability to self-refer. The real Universe is such a place, since it includes us.

Accordingly there seem to be three relevant cases: (a) The universe is finitely large and finitely detailed. Its complexity can be exhausted in human descriptions; eventually we will come to know everything. (b) The universe is infinitely large or infinitely detailed, or both. No finite system of thought can encompass its totality, and reality will always remain a mystery. (c) Quite independent of the nature of the world, the nature of the mind as an open system implies that understanding of the cosmos can never be complete. Cognition is troubled by the equivalent of Godel's essential incompleteness, so that even if (a) is true we will nevertheless always surprise ourselves, and knowledge will always be unfinished. And if (c) is true, how can we decide between (a) and (b)? The apparent depth of reality could be a product of our perception as well as reflecting the reality of nature.

Best wishes,

Dan Bruiger

Todd,

I think a big part of the problem is what we consider information. To the extent information is reductionistic, it might be argued that anything which can be destroyed is not properly information, but that overlooks the fact that 99.9999% of what might reasonably be considered information is emergent and thus is temporally finite. Anything with a beginning, potentially has an end.

Another factor in relativity is "block time." If we actually consider spacetime to be physically real, with every point in space and time existing in some greater coordinate system, except for what cannot be accessed, because it exists within the boundaries of a black hole, than all events and thus information exist out there somewhere.

My argument about time, which I made in the initial FQXi contest on the nature of time, that we are looking at it backwards and it's activity turning future into past, means these events only exist as they are present. Safe to say, I don't get a lot of agreement on this, though I do get some. There are just too many sacred cows turned to dust in this view. I don't have the mathematical chops to prove the point, but in rational argument, it gets dismissed but not refuted.

Consider the multiworlds scenario: If it's the collapse of probabilities into events which actually creates the effect of time passing and not an underlaying dimension along which the present travels from past to future, there is no issue to dealing with quantum probabilities, or any other kind. If time is an effect of motion, then there can be no dimensionless point in time, or it would freeze the motion creating it. Basically like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. As there can be no dimensionless point in time, then objects, whether quantum particles or automobiles, cannot be separated from their motion. So not only does the wave particle duality make sense, but it seems foolish to think of it otherwise. Which goes back to the relationship between objects and their context.

The problem is that the basis of the rational mind is that serial cause and effect of temporal events. We are constantly trying to pull the narrative thread out of, or impose it on the larger non-linear reality. As people, organizations, states, nations, religions. etc, we are defined by our narrative, but that thread always exists in some larger tapestry in which there are invariably diametrically opposing views. Which are viewed as a threat to ones own story, but in fact support it. We would have no definition without limits. There is no left without right, no up without down, no good without bad, no yin without yang.

So now we are stuck trying to provide a physical explanation for the narrative dimension of time, in much the same way as we spent millennia trying to explain how the sun moved across the sky.

In fact, clocks evolved out of sundials and the hands, representing the present, grew out of the shadow moving along the marks on the face of the dial. Yet it is the present which is still and the events which come and go, just as it's the sun which is still and the earth which moves.

Even in the situation of cause and effect, all cause of any event cannot be known prior to its occurrence, since input can be arriving at the speed of light from opposite directions, so cause is effectively in the future and it is the effect, the event, which recedes into the past.

Obviously one of my pet arguments and one which specifically caused me to be banned from physicsforums and part of the reason for being banned from Cosmic Variance. The other part for arguing against Big Bang Theory, which I go into in my current essay.

Regards,

John

Yes, Todd, I think there are aspects of nature that cannot be formalized, simply by virtue of the fact that it is "found", not made.

Dan

Thanks for this thought-provoking essay. I particularly liked your point about the storage of "instructions" that the formal systems we construct to try to describe reality don't explain. It is easy to become so absorbed in a formal system model that we don't even think about questions that go beyond it. This, in turn, can reinforce the illusion that the model fully describes reality.

Hi, again, Todd

I posted the following on my thread as well, in response to your post there.

Your parallel, of the elusiveness of nature and that of the human person, is right on, in my opinion. Neither of us would suggest that the physical world somehow IS personal, but it might in some ways be more productive for human beings, both socially and scientifically, to relate to it AS THOUGH it were. The problem is the third-person stance, through which one demeans nature as a mere "it"--something to manipulate and surround by thought. Nature is elusive in the way that persons are, because in both cases they can defeat our expectations. We now have almost universal laws (whatever the actual practices) concerning human rights. I was encouraged to hear that a conference in Brazil recently declared a charter of the rights of nature. That's a political gesture, of course. It's interesting to try to imagine what its scientific counterpart might be as a research program.

I had meant to tell you before that I really liked your use of the 'mask' metaphor, in your essay, to characterize the scientific modelling process. If we think of the ancient Greek theater, the masks the actors wore were literally stylized symbols and also represented fictional characters. That is, both the mask and what it represented were artifacts.

Thanks again,

Dan

Dear Todd,

I have read your essay and agree with your explanation. Until we include our inner most self or singularity in to the equation we will not be able to understand the universe or reality or virtuality fully. Please see the essay titled Theory of everything that I have posted in this contest at your convenience as I would like to share my experience with you.

who am I? I am virtual reality, I is absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Todd,

Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge for all the we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.

Please read Theory of everything at your convenience posted by me in this contest.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Todd,

I enjoyed your essay, and agree with you that our formal systems determine the 'properties' of the reality that we experience informally. But then you say that, although "we have not yet arrived at that one complete formal system, ... it is assumed to exist."

Based on your other arguments, this assumption would seem questionable, at best. For example you quote Wheeler, "What makes 'meaning'?" This evidently brings consciousness into the picture, and it is far from certain that a formal system can 'formalize' consciousness [despite the fact that I have attempted something like this in a previous essay.]

You say that you are merely raising these issues as food for thought, which seems to imply that you are not wedded to the ideas [at least yet]. In this case I would ask that you give some thought to the idea that "the very existence of these things requires instructions to define their properties" and the idea that "information is physical", and "information must be fundamentally connected to the physical form in which it is stored."

Not surprisingly, with digital computers everywhere, there is much emphasis on 'the universe as digital computer'. But if continuous fields exist, then the concept of analog computer may be more appropriate. Digital computers require 'bits' of information to be interpreted, and the location of the bits and the nature of the interpreter is presently not understood. But analog computers are based on 'real' components, and are programmed by establishing connections, in the way that General Relativity attempts to define connectivity. If fields exist, they would seem to obviate the 'need' for digital computation at the fundamental level.

There are many here who seem to believe in 'information is physical', and just as many who do not. I've argued this in various threads, and won't clog up your thread by repeating these. But I do believe that this is a major fault line in modern physics, and if you have not already decided which side of the line you wish to live on, it might be good to check out both neighborhoods. I do not believe that information is physical, it is descriptive and context dependent. I don't think physical information simplifies anything, but confuses things even further.

The issue of information seems peripheral to your main points, which seems to be summed up in the statement that "the very act of formalizing is what creates the incompleteness." I'll buy that.

If you get a chance to study my essay, I would appreciate any comments you might have.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Sir,

We have gone through your excellent analysis and searching questions that could lead in the right direction to get the truth. At the conceptual level, we appear to be close to each other, but the different methods we use to describe our ideas may give an impression of differences. Thus, kindly bear with us.

You have correctly quoted Carroll to points out the need to "model the world as a formal system, which is both unambiguous and complete as a description of reality." Also "Once we figure out the correct formal structure, patterns, boundary conditions, and interpretation, we have obtained a complete description of reality." But unfortunately, most scientists avoid an "unambiguous and complete ...description of reality." Till now there is no unanimity among scientists as to what constitutes reality. Thus, we had started our essay by trying to give an "unambiguous and complete description of reality."

You say: "A formal system is a model." We agree. You ask: "Where does the model "live," in such a reality?" The answer is a formal system is the perception of some features of something and communication of such perception in a formal language. Thus, the model "lives" in the "knowability" and "describability" of something that is the object of perception.

You quote Legget's question: "can a satisfactory description of the physical world fail to take account of the fact that it is itself formulated by and for human beings?" The question is evidently wrong. The description has not been "formulated" by human beings, but its perception only is being described by human beings. It is not formulated for human beings, but it controls human beings also. Thus, it remains beyond human beings like all other things in the Universe. Just like we perceive everything that exists and describe it, so also we describe reality. The only difference between reality and other objects is that reality encompasses all other objects (analog), whereas all other objects are part of it (digital).

Similarly, the view of Edward Harrison regarding Universe and universes is evidently wrong. The statement: "The Universe by definition is everything and includes us experiencing and thinking about it" is vague. What does he mean by "everything"? If you go by Big Bang, you must describe "the Universe expanded into what?" If there was something, it is obviously beyond the Universe. Thus, the Universe cannot be "everything." If you go by the "Big Bounce", the question reappears. If you go by the "Steady State Theory", the question remains about the "state". If there was something else from which the Universe was created, it stands to logic that it cannot be the only Universe just like Earth cannot be the only planet with living beings. If there was nothing, then the question remains from what the present Universe came into existence. The only explanation is the probability of existence of Multiverses, though we do not agree with MWI.

The question "What makes 'meaning'?" can be explained as the description that remains invariant under multiple perceptions or measurements under similar conditions through properly functioning measurement systems. By properly functioning we mean the function that follows the theory of interaction of forces operating on the system. "How come existence?" is a different question altogether that we can explain, but it is neither the opportune time nor the forum for that.

You ask: "What is the substrate within which this description of space and time is encoded?" The answer is as you have described: "matter" itself is patterns of fields in space and time. Particles are nothing but locally confined fields. Both space and time are related to the order of arrangement in the field, i.e., sequence of objects and events contained in them like the design on a fabric. Both space and time co-exist like the fabric and its back ground color. The perception of this sequence is interrupted by an interval however infinitesimal. The interval between objects is called space and that between events is called time. We take a fairly intelligible and repetitive interval and use it as the unit, where necessary by subdividing it. We compare the interval with this unit interval and call the result measurement of space and time respectively.

To your question: "Where is the fact of space-time being pixelated "stored" to make sure that it consistently keeps the correct pixel size?", there are multiple answers for different aspects. Analog and digital descriptions apply for infinite and finite dimensions. Sometimes analog is also used for very big dimensions. Space and Time are analog, out of which we use select segments (like taking out buckets of water from sea) and call it digital. In a sense nothing is "pixelated 'stored' to make sure that it consistently keeps the correct pixel size?" Every particle evolves with time. We measure the state at a particular instant and freeze that description as the result of measurement, which we use at subsequent times when the particle has changed its state. All other states than the one measured remain unknown. We refer to this combination of unknown states as the superposition of states.

Regarding "How do the "atoms" get instructions about the laws they must obey", the answer is the density variation in the field generates different movements that are revealed as the fundamental forces of Nature. We have a detailed model, which we are not discussing now. Thus, most of the "instructions" are really interactions as a mechanical reaction or as induced by a conscious agent, which again are reduced to mechanical reactions.

We agree that "information is physical." The second law of thermodynamics proves our earlier statement. The information lives in the nature of the Universe - maintain the state of equilibrium. This tendency for maintaining equilibrium generates two complementary forces: inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity). These forces can act linearly or through a point in the field at equilibrium. This creates non-linear behavior that leads to different confinements which are experienced as different forces of Nature.

It is correct that: "we need more than the 'atoms', to describe reality fully". "We can actually dispense with the need for the atoms to be the real", but that would not be a correct description. A bucket of water is not enough to describe sea, but then it is sea water. We cannot deny this fact. Atoms stand in a unique footing in the Natural scheme of things. Up to atoms, two elementary particles combine to give up their inherent individual characteristics to create a third particle (the reverse process is also true). This is evident from the mass difference between the quarks that constitute the proton or neutron and the mass of proton or neutron. But atoms onwards are only combinations of the protons and neutrons in different combinations, where the individual particles retain its individual identity. This is the dividing line between the macro world and the quantum world.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

Mr. Edwin Eugene Klingman says it is far from certain that a formal system can 'formalize' consciousness. He admits that he had attempted something like this in a previous essay. We do not succeed in first attempt. That does not mean it is not achievable.

Consciousness, as we know it, is always associated with matter. It functions through the measurement principle - by comparing with similars. This is because when we say: "We have knowledge about this", the content of this statement is "this is like the impression stored in our memory". These impressions that are stored in our memory or that leads to perceptions are nothing but a physical mechanism that stimulates our sense organs. Since we have a formal system of describing physical mechanism, it is possible to formalize a system that can compare other systems with it. Thus, it is certain that a formal system can 'formalize' consciousness.

We have discussed your essay in the next thread.

Regards,

basudeba.

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.