Is Reality Analog or Digital? by Alfonso Treviño

Hi Alfonso,

I enjoyed your essay and agree with your take on the discreteness/continuity question. Do you have any thoughts on how the kind of discreteness you mention might be explicitly captured in code? (I note from your bio that you have a computing background.) I ask because this is where the focus of my own research lies, and I'm keen to gain the perspectives of others who've thought about this topic.

I have invested some effort in building concrete software simulations that replicate some key experiments, such as simple instances of relativity and the double slit experiment. Would you be interested in looking at some Java that models some of the physical phenomena you mention?

Alex

Hello Alfonso, I thought our essay was very professional with good illustrations to engage the reader. I like the common sense appraoch you have and the stating of fundamental ideas. I have a foundational new way of visualising a GRAVITON using an Archimedes screw mechanical model. Is this something you have thought of before? If this helical model of a graviton travelled around a wraparound universe then it would emerge on the other side as an ANTI-GRAVITON or force of repulsion i.e. DARK ENERGY! Did Newton miss this simple trick to explain the spooky action at a distance Alfonso? Kind regards,

Alan

Alfonso:

Very interesting essay. There are several essays which analyze the relation of the universe and computation. Among those essays the ones from the 3 Mexicans : yours, Hector Zenil's - whom i guess has been quite successful here- and mine.(Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud )

Take a look on the essays and drop a comment if you can.

I am director general of S&C Constructores de Sistemas, and I think I've meet you before (maybe you know Javier Olvera who used to work with us).

Again, a very good essay.

Good luck.

Your essay is a bit unorganized and, with due respect, suffers from lack of rigor and of originality.

To illustrate the lack of rigor, when you say that English language is a finite language because, you say, it is based in 26 letters (that doesn't make it finite) or because you are trying to make a connection to automata theory, it is not clear at all whether you are dealing with formal definitions. It seems you ignore the exact definition from the field of automata and formal languages and that rather you too relaxed on the use of finite or finite machine. English grammar is not a regular language that can be modeled by finite automata as it seems you may be strongly suggesting by the treatment you give it (including the diagram you present), to later connect it to quantum mechanics a paragraph later! and then jumping to String theory one more paragraph later!

Did you mean Computability theory when talking about Turing? I hadn't heard of Computational theory. However Computability theory is not concerned with what you say is concerned. You start talking about Turing to make your point on what kind of computer the universe may be. But then you introduce the idea of finite machines. Are you suggesting the world is a finite automata? It cannot be, because it contains all kind of things that are not finite automata, including digital computers that at worst are bounded automata (but generally accepted they are Turing complete machines). Turing contribution was his model of Turing machines, different from finite automata. The decision problem of finite automata is solvable, while it is not for Turing machines. From then you jump to the conclusion that quantum mechanics can also be modeled by finite automata and therefore the universe is a giant quantum computer! Assuming the incredible lack of rigor and jumping from subject to subject this is but Seth Lloyd's claim. Could you summarize what is your contribution to the discussion? Is it a kind of survey of the sentiment of the loop gravity community?

I'm also quite surprised about your claim that the 'Monterrey Institute of Technology is Mexico's most prestigious university' in your biography summary. I can see the Monterrey Institute is relatively well placed for business among Spanish speaking institutions but it seems it doesn't make it into the rankings for most fields, particularly science and technology. UNAM, however, appears at the top among the Spanish speaking universities, both in the general ranking and by fields, particularly science. My comment may be out of place, but only as it is out of place yours, specially coming from someone that have studied in the said university and works for it and therefore far from being unbiased in one's bio description.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so harsh, but from someone that claims to come from the best university of a country I would have expected something better. I would have read your paper differently, more indulgently, if I had not read that comment.

Thanks.

Hi, Alex.

First of all, thanks for your comment on my essay. Modeling the whole universe as a finite state machine is obviously something hard. I'm not a cosmologist or physicist myself, though these subjects appeal to me a lot and I'm not scared of equations, but I'm far from knowing all the mathematucal detail underlying relativity and other theories, but any equation implies some kind of interacyion between two or more components, so understanding the interactions can lead us to a good model.

In the essay I ilustrated my point by modeling a pronto-proton reaction, it's relatively simple, but when trying to model the fusion reactions of the whole Sun this way you'll have the outpit of a FSM as the input of another and the output of the second one entering the third and taking longer snapshots. Each FSM would model just a set of particles, but as particles mover randomly, some of the by-products would interact with other particles, so you start another FSM.

I hope I was more or less clear.

About your Java code, it's been some time since I left behing the programming side of IT to move into the startegic line, but if you want to send something with specific questions I could ask the help of one of the guys working with me.

Alfonso

Hi, Alan:

Thanks for your comments on my essay. Your idea of the graviton modeled around an Archimedes screw is interesting; I hadn't thought about it, though I remembered reading sometime ago on SciAm an article in which dark energy was explained as the way gravitons interact with matter in relation to the shape of the universe. I don't have the details at hand right now, in fact, is something I would like to read again.

Hi Joan, thanks for your comments on my essay. Maybe we have met, but I don't remember where or when. I work at Tec de Monterrey as Director of IT architecture and some years ago I used to be Director of Information Engineering, an elegant name for the boss of the DBAs and application server managers.

I don't know if we met with respect to some software evaluation or maybe in some Oracle event.

Good luck with your essay.

Alfonso

Thank you for considering the mechanical model of the proposed graviton Alfonso. I have a thought experiment which illustrates the important relationship between chirality, loops and mirror images. Incidentally, I learnt from a repeat of QI on TV last night about oranges and lemons. The aroma of a lemon is the exact mirror image of an orange and vice versa. Our olfactory sense, the first one to develop via evolution I believe, is ultra sensitive to right and left handedness of airborne molecules, which I find quite interesting. Here's the simple thought experiment:

"I'd just like to re-iterate my point about a spinning helix which travels around a hypersphere being analogous to an electric circuit. Imagine you are on the inside of a battery which is connected to a simple loop of wire which makes an electric circuit. Imagine a handle rotates clockwise from the positive terminal as seen from your internal perspective. Now trace this turning handle as it travels along the wire and arrives at the negative terminal of the battery. Which way is the handle now turning from the viewpoint of the battery's interior? Is it clockwise or is it anti-clockwise?"

I found it a revelation and I hope you do too. Kind regards, Alan

Hi, Paul:

I'm trying to leave no posts unanswered. I'm dissapointed that you dind't like what I wrote, and also, I don't agree with you about what you say about my university, but I respect your opinion and I just wanted to say thanks for your comments. Not all comments have to be good and you've got to respect other people's points of view.

In science--and I'm not a professional scientist, just someone who, spite of his career, has had a great interest in science since childhood--you have to be prepared for all kind of opinions.

The only thing I can say in my defense is that I tried to do by best and, yes, maybe my example about English is not formal enough, but I was expecting to use English as a brief example. Putting the English language into mathematical form in order to prove it can be parsed by a finite state machine is beyond the scope of the contest and it would've take some space which I preferred to devote to the subkect at hand.

The other thing is that, yes, UNAM is maybe the university in Mexico where the most research is done, but UNAM, being a government university gives it some advantages --more funds-- and some disadvantages --more than once there had been movements and strikes with political tainting. My claim thet Monterrey Institute of Technology is the most prestigous in Mexico is not mine and I recognized the prestige of other mexican institutions as well.

Ultimately, it depends on the eye of the beholder the aspects you want to take in account when wvaluating a university.

Again, thanks for your comments and no hard feelings.

Alfonso

Hi, Alan:

Your thought experiment is interesting. I would like to take the liberty of defining chirality and symemetry in laymen terms. Chirality has a direction --clockwise or counter-clockwise, from left to right or viceversa--, whil symmetry means that a something presents equal characteristics when viewed against an axis.

What it would be interesting is to put your mental experimental going backwards. If there's no distintion between forwards and backwards, then you'd have found a symmetry.

Although this is only a thought experiment and there's no math involved, which I deem relevant to be able to ennunciate a good hypothesis, finding a symmetry could imply the existence of anti-gravity, something that yet has to be accounted by general relativity. Although some scientists believe in the possibility of adding two short-range forces to the four fundamental ones, this scenario is not favored by most scientists.

Finding out that there's no symmetry in yoir thought experiment would imply that gravity has just one sign--attractive--allowing for just one direction for the arrow and time.

Well, those were my after lunch thoughts.

Good luck with your experiment.

Alfonso

Hi Alfonso,

Thank for your answer. Again sorry to have been a bit harsh but poor views accompanied with arrogant statements do not help. The thing is that English cannot be fully parsed with finite automata, perhaps you can recognize words with a finite automata but natural language is not a regular language (when I say regular language notice that there is a precise mathematical definition of regular language as you may know being a computer engineer). I would be surprised if you can prove that English can be parsed with a finite automaton unless you imply that parsing is just recognizing certain simple features of English, such as a dictionary lookup.

On the evaluation of universities, I don't agree that it depends on the eye of the beholder, or if that is the case, official rankings are made precisely to give some objectivity to such subjectivity. It's fine to believe that your university is the most prestigious university, but then you should add the precision that you mean among the private universities. When you said it was the best right in your bio (which I think anyway is not the place to do so) you didn't say that you were ruling out others because they are government funded or because they sometimes go into strikes... --which by the way I don't see what the problem would be if still produces most research in the country and remains in the top places worldwide. It seems you should rather be proud of your national university, as far as I know state universities are not owned by a handful of people in mexico but by every Mexican.

As you say, no hard feelings, just hope you and your university friends can hold grandiose claims if they use to make them often as I'm told they do. Cheers.

Hi Alfonso, thanks for thinking about the thought experiment. It -is- the same whether going backwards or forwards. It doesn't matter which direction or which terminal you start from either of course. Thank you for this clarification and the following statement: "What would be interesting is to put your mental experimental going backwards. If there's no distintion between forwards and backwards, then you'd have found a symmetry. Although this is only a thought experiment and there's no math involved, which I deem relevant to be able to ennunciate a good hypothesis, finding a symmetry could imply the existence of anti-gravity, something that yet has to be accounted by general relativity."

I have therefore found a symmetry and have a hypothesis for anti-gravity i.e. dark energy. Do you see the connection with a graviton which is an attractive force when radiated away from an object to the right in one instance, but if it manages to travel around the hypersphere without interacting with another structure, then emerges on the opposite side, i.e. approaching from the left, it is now a force of repulsion, relative to the initial object?

Best wishes, Alan

Alfonso

I enjoyed your quite fascinating essay. I could certainly see some logic and interesting thoughts. I'm not an expert on LQG and haven't yet had time to study it in detail. I've concentrated on the slightly greater scale. I hope you may get a chance to look, score and comment before tomorrows deadline as many can't conceptualise well enough, but I think you may. Any possible connections and consistencies with LQG would be very interesting. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Sir,

We have gone through your excellent analysis and must complement you for your analytical abilities. We both are conceptually closer to each other, though our descriptions seem to contradict each other on many occasions.

You have assumed that both c and G are constant. The velocity of light in different media varies with the density of the medium. There is nothing like true vacuum or empty space. Thus, c has to be properly defined. Dirac has proposed a changing value for G. Subsequent measurements from time to time have yielded different values for G. We posit that G is a constant only for a local field. It varies over long distances.

You use the term "lower limit". It is a relative term. But where is the proof that it is the lowest limit? You say: "Having lower limits for time and length make us conclude that the nature of reality is digital, or discrete." But how do you prove that the "lower limits" cannot be further subdivided?

You say: "although clocks divide time in hours, minutes and seconds, we are aware of the existence of shorter periods of time." According to you, these are the lower limits. Obviously, these are subdivisions of bigger limit. A second is neither a natural unit nor are nano-seconds or Pico-seconds. They are subdivisions of day or year, which are natural units. If an undetermined "lower limit" exists, according to your description, it must be a subdivision of a bigger unit. Thus, you imply that bigger is analog and smaller is digital. If this is so, the argument is circular because even bigger can be digital with reference to something even bigger. The proper description of analog and digital would be infinite and finite dimensions. Thus, in our essay, we have shown that time and space, which are truly infinite are analog. But the segments of these that we use are digital. Both space and time are related to the order of arrangement, i.e., sequence of objects and events contained in them like the design on a fabric. Both 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.

It is not correct to say that "The fabric of space-time is, therefore, constructed from tiny building blocks of Planck dimensions." It is the other way round. Otherwise you have to explain what binds these digitized time and space segments to give an analog perception. Your example of a movie is not appropriate for your description, because the individual snap shots are like individual events that require a background screen. Analog Time provide this screen, without which we cannot have a perception of continuity. Similarly your example of "As we go to larger scales, meaningful interactions comprise larger types of particles, causing the Planck distance to be irrelevant and non-evident from a macroscopic perception" will not help. The distance is moved in space. The movement does not create space. Your example of "a sheet of sand" will not help either because the sand also requires some background to hold it together. This is space. The distance makes the differences imperceptible to others, but did not affect the sand. In our essay, we had shown the true implication of minimal length and minimal time.

You say: "As there's no quantum with less energy than qn we can deduce that there cannot be time intervals or lengths lower than the ones stated above--tn and ln." We agree. But this does not prove that there is no interval. It only shows the "extent" of such interval. Your other description of the computer operation also does not help because it only shows that there is no event; hence there is "no end to the interval". But this does not mean that there is no interval, which is time. In any case, time only describes the interval; it does not affect the events. Hence whether the computer care about the nature of time or not is irrelevant.

Similarly, your statement that: "the computer doesn't care if the operation involves a series of steps or if it is performed fluently; the computer only cares about the change of state" does not prove anything as neither space nor time influence the objects or the events. The objects and the events are influence by the energy content in their environment, i.e., the field, which can influence them mechanically or through induction by a conscious agent.

Though we appear to be contradicting you, it is only about your descriptions of the phenomena. We agree with your concept that "universe (is) a type of finite state machine". We also agree that "Causality and the expansion of the universe are not affected by continuous or discrete space-time" and "no matter if reality is analog or digital, the universe will operate the same."

Incidentally, we do not accept string theory or the descriptions of quantum gravity.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Alfonso,

I appreciate all your intellectual endeavors to understand our Universe better. We share in that passion. You say " a minimum quantity of energy requires a minimum time to be emitted or absorbed during an interaction". I couldn't agree with that idea more! But unlike your 'discrete Universe', I take the view that the Universe is fundamentally continuous. Central to the results presented in my essay is the idea that 'energy accumulates continuously before it is manifested discretely'. And also, 'energy propagates continuously as a wave, but interacts discretely'. With these principles I am able to explain the double-slit experiment as well as mathematically derive Planck's Law for blackbody radiation.

In my essay I show that Planck's Law is actually an exact mathematical tautology (like the Pythagorean Theorem) and does not really depend on any physical assumptions like 'energy quanta'. This is the real reason why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

One other result which I posted just a few days ago you will find especially interesting as it shows that the constant speed of light hypothesis of SR contradicts the photon hypothesis of QM! I have mathematically proved that "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave".

These are profound and iconoclastic results. I need your help and support to bring these results before the panel of experts for a fair and serious review. Can I count on you?

All the best,

Constantinos

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.