
#37
Feb2009, 01:22 PM

P: 2,456

However, in QM matter in a finite volume can be only in the countable set of states, and even more, if energy inside that volume is limited (which is always true, otherwise it would be a black hole) matter can be in finite number of states. 



#38
Feb2009, 01:45 PM

P: 87





#39
Feb2009, 02:19 PM

P: 2,456

Agreed. However, lets take peano axiomatcs (formal arithmetics). Set of axioms is very short, but the number of numbers :) and number of their properties is infinite. So finite set of equations of TOE can govern infinite physical entities.
I can not prove that your idea with an intinite sets of TOE models is wrong, but I just dont like it. BTW Max Tegmark discusses it too. 



#40
Feb2009, 03:58 PM

P: 104

We cannot know EVERYTHING about the universe but hopefully we can learn enough to progress our technology. My knowledge of quantum physics is still pretty limited but I think quantum mechanics is as fundamental you get and maybe, with some modifications here and there, the solutions may be interesting. But of course, that is just an ignorant student talking.
Abraham Pais once said that Einstein himself predicted that a unified field theory would churn out all the details without us having to worry about the extra particles etc. 



#41
Feb2109, 12:50 AM

P: 87





#42
Feb2109, 04:08 AM

P: 2,799

His response have some good points but misses some points in my objection.
The question is not what is, but what I can KNOW. It's the frog vs bird view again. Tegemark sees no problem with the birds view, as it seems. I do. Set aside humans, the information about the enviroment exists somewhere, and it's in the microstructure of hte observer. Where else? It's the one obvious place for it. /Fredrik 



#43
Feb2109, 06:29 AM

P: 2,456

Fra, I see your main objection is that a 'pure' matematical structure can not exist without a 'basis'. It reminds me a story of either: it was so obvious for everyone that lightwaves needed some basis, some substance to propagate in, right? :)
You call it 'crazy'  yes, I agree. And, based on the history of physics, is a best sign that it could be true! And then again, you say 'encoded'. You always assume that there is some substance needed to give life for the mathematical structures. Why? Lets say TOE equations are published tomorrow. What do you expect to see? Do you expect to have there some purely physical axioms, which can ot be expressed in a mathematical form? 



#44
Feb2109, 07:38 AM

P: 2,799

I am NOT looking for a "realistic basis" like the old ether advocates wanted. It's more subtle, but a basis nevertheless. But mathematical models are only representations, it "lables" something else as a kind of abstraction. If I describe an atom with equations, then the state space and the action encoded in this, are just an abstract representation of what the atom itself is a manifestation of. Therefor there is in some sense IMHO at least (I guess it's also part of my personal reasoning and intutition, so there is nothing I can "prove") a one2one correspondence between a minimal representation of observed reality and mathematics. This is also why I have objections to the use of continuum as a fundamental starting point. In this representation mapping, the information capacity is important. I can not stretch myself to picture infinite information content, in a small region of space. It makes no sense to my brain. THAT choice of abstraction is IMHO redundant, and is only obscuring things. IT is not one bit surprising that you get infinites coming up all over the place. I have yet to see nature produce a representation of an infinity. So I expect to see a kind of learning model, where physical interactions, and emergent structure of matter are a result of intrinsic logic between interacting parts. This "logic" is what I consider to be the CORE of a new model. Particle masses etc, would be outputs following from processing experimental data in line with this principle. To me the mathematics is just a representation. If I am going to write down a model in a paper, it will be in the form of mathematics and algorithms. Probably some information processing algorithms along with normal dynamics equations with initial conditions. But no equation on a sheet of paper can answer everything. I think what we can write down, are the core of the logic of our understanding, the further encodes howto process the information at hand in the best way. I see physical interactions, as communication between system. Each and every one part can consider themselves an observer, observing the rest. Each choice of observer will give a different picture, and I think the tension between these pictures is the origin of forces. Internal forces are after all a manifestation of a sort of disagreement or inconsistencies. It's a description at this level, I am looking for, and the core I expect to be: the logic of how nature processes, acts and encodes this. IF you sense a chicken/egg case here, I like Zureks statement that "what the observer IS, and what the observer KNOWS" is inseparable. Meaning that your knowledge does not SIT on external hardware (memory device), reather the hardwre is inseparable from the information encoded into it. But I haven't yet seen a full implementation of these ideas, but it's what I expect to see tomorrow when You publish the TOE equations /Fredrik 



#45
Feb2109, 07:42 AM

P: 2,799

Indeed, I can partially see sense in what he says. But I think the main difference is that I require that all of this, is constrained into a frogs perspective. Tegemark seems to have some strange idea that he will find a master bird view, from which he can "compute" any given frogs view. That's exactly what I think is impossible. His birds view, even if it did exists, would not fit into tegemerks own brain!! :) That may seem both silly and obvious, but I think it does change the strategy a bit. /Fredrik 



#46
Feb2109, 08:01 AM

P: 2,799

Similary, I think there are emergent bird views, between local groups of observers, that can even be seen by some "larger frogs", but the ultimate birds view is I think just an illusion. OTOH, the action of a frog, will be as if his image is a birds view. But when a third largers frog analysis this, he will (personal conjecture here) see an inconsistency in the two birds view. Therefore, calling them bird views make little sense. The actual BIRD never enters the equation, because it's an abstraction. There are only frogs, to interact, observer and compare each other. The only difference is that some frogs are smaller, and some frogs are bigger. The big frogs may feel like gods, giggling at the small frogs interacting, without realising that they are themsleves also just frogs. /Fredrik 



#47
Feb2109, 08:55 AM

P: 2,456

Remember, noneucledian geometry was developed for purely mathematical reasons before GR needed it. We could say: curved space is an abstraction. And oops, there we live. We used to say "complex numbers are just a way to solve some problems in physics mathematically. All physical variables MUST be real. And oops, vawefunction is complex! Do you see a trend here? You say "But mathematical models are only representations  I would add, "so far". So may be it is time to actually make this step? mathematical models WERE only representations... 1A You see, if we accept Max Tegmerk's point of view, we dont need to answer "what the reality is". If TOE equations are just a model of reality, what is reality? Why it does not collapse and dissapear? Why the core nature of reality can no9t dissaper, like a virtual world in my computer, when I shut it down? 2 It looks like you are worrying about the Matrix, about being asked to emulate our world. So, you see the problem of having infinite amoutn of information is a finite region of space. But wait, space is infinite. Why dont you have a problem with an infinite information for the whole universe? No matter if information in some region is finite or infinite, it does not "help" your computer... 3 Thank you for riminding me about the mass spectrum. How many "free" parameters do you expect to see in TOE? 



#48
Feb2109, 09:01 AM

P: 2,456

I believe that the equations of the bird's view are simpler then the ones for the frog's view. QM is a perfect example. In MWT, bird's view is QM without collapse. Frog's view is created by the Quantum Decoherence. And it is here, in the frog's view, where all the weirdness comes in place: randomness, nonlocality, collapse. If you read his article you problbly remember that "the whole ight be simpler then each part of it" 



#49
Feb2109, 09:43 AM

P: 2,799

> 1A
> You see, if we accept Max Tegmerk's point of view, we dont need to answer "what the reality is". If TOE equations are just a model of reality, > what is reality? The TOE equations would ideally be the _best answer_ to What's reality. That's good enough for me. > Why it does not collapse and dissapear? Why the core nature of reality can no9t dissaper, like a virtual world in my computer, > when I shut it down? There is still a state of the PC when it's shut down. You just removes the forced state from PC programs and circtuis. You can't make a direct analogy. In reality one can't pull the plug between the microstate and microstructure. The reason for the "stabiliy of the image" is IMO related to inertia of the hardware. The hardware has evolved along with the state, and NO observed event can instantaneously change this, because I think the notion of time is entangled with this. It's impossible for me to try to convince you in this thread, but I see many ways in how the origin of inertia, in the context of information processing is why a "virtual" image actually does acquire inertia and stability. This is because the construction of the "hardware" that SUPPORTs the image has a certain inertia, and deformation of the hardware is a slowly evolving process, compared to changing the STATE of the hardware. It's analogous to the dynamics IN spacetime, and the dynamics of spacetime geoemtry itself. There is a feedback, but the inertia of spacetime is large enough to give a certain stability. > 2 > It looks like you are worrying about the Matrix, about being asked to emulate our world. So, you see the problem of having infinite amoutn > of information is a finite region of space. But wait, space is infinite. > Why dont you have a problem with an infinite information for the whole universe? Why would there be a problem with that? As long as I don't see it all at once, which I don't I'm fine :) The point is that I can not even construct a measuring device to measure this infinite size. > No matter if information in some region is finite or infinite, it does not "help" your computer... First I should att the "computer hardware" in this case, is the matter itself. Computations are simply physical interactions. The memory is the STATE of the hardware  the microstate of matter. But even when solving the equations of a human theory, a normal Pc may be used, and it can not handle infinite information. You can't perform a computation in finite time on infinite information. That's one very practical part. A local computer does not NEED all information in the universe for his daily business, because I think any local observer, responds only to his local information. Therefore, information unavailable has no impact, and can be disregarded with no ill effects. It will never be possible to deterministically predict the future. The problem at hand, is to guess the future sufficiently good to survive in your given environment. This provides a selection for algorithms. Stupid algorithms doesn't get preserved, but neither do they need to be banned. They punish themselves out of business. > 3 > Thank you for riminding me about the mass spectrum. How many "free" parameters do you expect to see in TOE? I think this questions reveals that you may have a different idea of what the theory is like than me. I think the answer depends on it's evolutionary state. Ideally each parameters is a result of an evolutionary history, and if you loose the information of the history, then you end up with a "free parameter", but it really isn't "free", it's just that you might have lost track of it. If we take a more practical question, as to how many of the current parameters in the standard model I execpt to see go away, then for sure all the particle masses should be explained. I think the spectrum of particles will correspond to different evolutionary stages as you scale up the mass. And I expect that the logic here should explain the hierarchies we see. If you start the observation at a late stage, the more free parameters do you need to "fit" to experimental data. I think this is natural, and isn't a flaw by any means. /Fredrik 



#50
Feb2109, 09:48 AM

P: 2,799

If I'm right this will be the particle spectrum we see. And masses as well as the participation in the forces should hopefully come out. /Fredrik 



#51
Feb2109, 10:34 AM

P: 2,456

But let me back up to the question about the model. What is a difference between model and reality, map and territory? Imagine that TOE equations look like F(Y)=0 where F is formula. Y is some variable (complex? quaternion?). If appears that this equation can be solved only when Y is a variable in (real, complex, quaternion, something more complex) Kdimensional space. Based on the equation, the value of Y tends to compactify to something which appears to be a string. Different vibration modes manifest as different particles, etc, etc, you get the idea. It is important that you dont need any words. You can derive anything from this formula. Now your turn. A. You can say "F(Y)=0 is just a formula, just a model. It is not a reality" Then please tell me what a "reality" is and what it is made of. B. You can say "TOE wont look like a set of formulas. We will need formulas and something extra" Then your turn  please give any example of a physical property which can not be expressed in the mathematical terms. So far we had no such examples (expect may be consciousness) C. Finally you can say  there is an infinite sequence of TOE's, and no final, ultimate TOE. As I said, it would be depressing but I dont have any contre arguments. 



#52
Feb2209, 02:36 AM

P: 2,799

I see two points in this discussion now.
a) what's the deal with this "reality" vs "image of reality" b) What would our best theory look like and work? However, sometimes TOE is used as a more moderate meaning of something that unifies not only EM, weak and strong forces (a GUT) but also gravity. This is what I was talking about. What I expect from such TOE, then the "laws of evolution" are not hardcoded, they are also evolving. There are of course some initial laws of evolution, but these are subject to revision. Also the equations can not predict all the universe, the equations only describe the action of an observer. To describe a collection of interaction particles I'd expect two interaction equations that influence each other. The challange is to understand how an observer can selforganize and respond as to learn to survive in an unknown and unpredictalbe environment. The key is I think that as long as you can predict _something_ that may allow for your survival. What I'm looking for is the logic of survival, from the frogperspective. This is partly a game, where you invest your own life, in trying to persist and take control of the environment. (Ie the inversion of the black box problem, you are the box and the unknown environment on the outside is the "black box" of unkonwn size) I obviously ask what the reality is out there, and I form myself an expectation of the outside  this is my "image", and it's all I'll ever have. There isn't anything more to it than that. To try to compare this image with the real thing is nonsensial. IT can't be done by me. Wether it can be done bysomeone else is not an answer to the question posed. In essence, I am saying that the closest thinkg to the BIRDS view we can get, is the frogs EXPECTATION of the birds view. But this will be different from frog to frog. And this expectation of the birds view, is by definition what the frogs view is anyway. So that brings us back to the frog view. /Fredrik 



#53
Feb2209, 02:47 AM

P: 2,799

Ok here is more in order to explain my own expectations of what is to come
This means that there would be one TOE for each frog. And the development of the TOE goes hand in hand with the evolution of the frog. Just like I think matter, ENCODES the laws of physics, evolution of the universe is then evolution and formation of matter, but also evolution of _encoded_ physical law. A piece of matter that encodes a very twisted law, simply will have a hard time to survive in that environment. This is why the properties of matter emerge to become apparely universal. I can stretch myself to label the frogTOE to the frogs expectation of a birds view, but the frogfrog interaction is DRIVEN by the inconsistent birdviews. The interaction itself implies evolution of the frogs, which frog influences the other one more than the other, is also dependent on who has bigger inertia and can bully the other frogs opinon. It's the exact mathematics of this I'm looking for, and how that can be exploited to emergent matter and emergent spacetime and forces. /Fredrik 



#54
Feb2209, 04:30 AM

P: 2,456

let me give an example. A manual on the INTEL processor, the one probably installed in your computer, inambigously describes every tiny detail of how INTEL processor works. However, it can not answer a question: is Windows Vista volnerable to the virus XXXblahblahblah, even virus attack is something that is going inside the processor. The same with TOE: it should be able answer all FUNDAMENTAL questions, but not ALL the questions. It gives a complete basic for calculations, but can not predict individual events (except the universes with Laplace determinism). To predict individual facts we need not only determinism, but we need to know the initial conditions (which are also FACTS). Fundamental question is a question which is factfree, it is a questio about something, which can be done in a repeatable manner (what is an outcome of the following experiment...) The set of TOE equations can not help us to tell if there are any advanced civilzations in Andromeda. And the behavior of complex systems, even formally based on the QM/TOE laws, contains so many 'levels' so usually we use another laws. So TOE want answer any questions in medicine, sociology etc. When you talk about the frog's view and bird's view, this is important. We can not discover all FACTS about the birds view, but we can decipher all LAWS of the Bird's view, like we can find a form of 3D object looking at it's 2D shadow. This is exactly what we did before: we were looking at reality (gamma rays, Kmesons, blach holes) thru the prism of our experminatal devices. We can not see an elector forming a wave in an atom. We interpret some spikes and numbers, coming out of the computer. Deciphering the bird's view is not more difficult. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Scientific Revolution: Newtonian Physics  gravity waiting to be discovered?  Introductory Physics Homework  4  
PHYSICS HELP NEEDeD  Introductory Physics Homework  5  
Single man revolution in Theoretical Physics today?  General Physics  6  
Stunning Revolution in Physics or dumb Newspaper?  General Physics  6  
new theory of timespace: revolution in physics 1  General Physics  0 