LHC - the last chance for all theories of everything?

[Dmitry67]

The ambition is exactly a theory of relativity of information (and inference) that you mention! So if you like that, then there might be some grains in here that you can like as well.

I have 2 questions to that future theory - may be someone can give a reply?

1. As I mentioned, when you look at 2 particles you overestimate the amount information in that system, if you unaware of the fact that these particles were entangled. But in the past many particles had interacted somehow, so they are mutually bound by some conservations laws, and further in the past we look, the more bounding interaction we find.

The question is, to what extent do we overestimate the amount information in the typical system? Is it near 0 if we go back to the BB?

2. Based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
the amount of information in a given volume in proportional to the surface of the boundary of that region. Specifically, to the number of Planck-size 'pixels'.

The interesting thing is that if you increase the radius by 10x, the volume grows as 1000x, but surface (and information inside the region) grows as 100x. So average information density per voxel (volume pixel) decreases as you increase the volume!

On the bigger scales Universe becomes more and more primitive. We started to draw these spheres from the Earth. But it is illogical to assume that Universe in complex here but is more and more primitive far from us - there is no center of the universe.

So looks like the only option is to conclude that on large scale regions of the Universe start to repeat themselves.

 

[qsa]

Thanks for the lovely argument! But talking of “simulation” or “emulation” raises an issue that’s much easier to argue than what I was being incomprehensible about above.

There is no analytic solution to a problem as simple as the Newtonian 3-body problem. In other words, if I understand correctly, in a classical universe even very simple physical systems would constantly be finding exact solutions to problems that a computer can solve only approximately – and would be doing so in real time, with no expenditure of energy.

We don’t live in a classical universe, and it’s not clear how that affects the computation problem. On the one hand, the properties of systems don’t have to be specified by an infinite amount of information, and on the other hand the equations are a lot harder to compute.

But I think we can agree that any system capable of emulating the behavior of 3 particles is going to be a lot more complex than the 3 particles themselves, and it has to behave in much more complex ways. And of course, the computation problem becomes vastly more difficult if we have 4 or 5 particles – not to mention the number involved in any realistic physical situation.

The existence of computer simulations makes it easy for us to imagine that we also inhabit a simulation. But it’s easy to see this is really just a fantasy, if you think about the magnitude of the problem involved in, say, computing the paths of individual molecules in 1cc of air over the course of a second. This is something the physical world handles just fine, but no computer ever will.

I think your original idea was not about one system simulating another one, though... it was more like, the world does not need to be “simulated” or “computed” because it already is a mathematical pattern.

ConradDJ, solutions for differential equations or results of computing any algorithms are already there (that is exactly our point), so you are right in your last sentence. When we talk about us computing (simulating) we are trying to simplify the bizarre notion that existence is mathematics, and people have hard time accepting. As for accuracy, physicists say that in principle any classical problem can be solved accurately, even throwing a dice. You can do numerical solution and find out to any arbitrarily high accuracy provided you have formulated the problem correctly. Formulating the problem is a different issue, it is basically a human intelligence (and logistic) problem, not fundamental.

As for the accuracy of QM and the formulation issue, now you are talking about the really interesting part, which may bear directly on the postulate of math&reality. QM theory is very accurate –up to experimental set up accuracy-, but QFT is a different issue all together. The rapping about TOE in PF is all about not knowing a good (final) theory that describes nature. For me (I know people will through anything close to them on me now), the unification of forces and particles is not the biggest issue. I will not settle for anything less than complete description of interactions, be it one or many particles (with gravity, high-low …etc). The problem is that in QFT the operators are no more representing observables as in QM but the particle creation/destruction representation, the wave function represent the probability of creation/destruction and so on. The spatial information is lost. I don’t know why this issue has not been raised (it is difficult because SR is involved). But my program http://www.qsa.netne.net has the first very modest attempt at tackling this problem. Of course, most attempts at TOE are been concentrated in the Regularization/Renormalization problem, just aspirin if you ask me. Although, if somebody was suffering from a brain tumor and no cure were in sight, aspirin will do. If we are able to model reality in a highly accurate way, I would say we will be 80% (or 100% who knows) there to the theory of “existence is mathematics”. I can elaborate, but I think it is prudent to stop.

 

[Fra]

1. As I mentioned, when you look at 2 particles you overestimate the amount information in that system, if you unaware of the fact that these particles were entangled. But in the past many particles had interacted somehow, so they are mutually bound by some conservations laws, and further in the past we look, the more bounding interaction we find.

The question is, to what extent do we overestimate the amount information in the typical system? Is it near 0 if we go back to the BB?

I think we approach this in different ways. Entanglement and particles, conservation laws etc makes me think of the standard QM or QFT framework. Since I consider the notion of information we have in that framework to be inappropriate my reasoning doesn't start from that, I'm focused on finding a coherent framework.

For me, a measure of information is only defined differentially and locally with respect to an observer, so that the information defines a differential evolution (by the action). The feedback from a definite evolution, sometimes not only revises the information but also the information measure itself.

To see a link between GR and a relativistic theory of information here is a association:

When I insist that all information is inferred, I am suggesting a link between inference system and the information state. A link between state and "law" of change, if you like. This connection as I see it, defines a self-evolution. This self-evolution is pretty much the correspondence of a geodesic. Ie. given no conflicting information or unexpected interactions, the systems evolves as per a sort of geodesic in hypothesis space.

Even when the geodesic is curved, with respect to another observer, the inside view is still that it simlpy follows the geodesic. However, there will be differential forces that curves the inference system during a definite progress.

So, the inside observer does not perceive it's own path as curved, because the curving is a natural process where new information updats the expectaion of what the self-evolution is like.

So the inside view is just evolution in the forward direction, but where there is a new forward direction after each step so that the direction is always straight as judged from the inside. The inside view is that of evolving inference system.

Now, consider a second sufficiently complex obserer observing this from an external position, he will instead infere that there is a law that describes how the first observer deforms. Given the correct circuumstances about complexity of the second observer and ability to monitor the first sstems environment, then the first systems "inside evolving law" can be consistently described by fixed laws with respect to the second observer.

There is no conflict here. So in effect, there are dualities here when you transform between observers, you also transform the laws, but to find THAT transformation you need yet another third observer :) and he has to be even more COMPLEX to be able to infere with certainy this transformation. This is the sene where I insist that symmetry transformation are emergent, and the complexity of systems limits to what exten this is possible. When the limit is reached, the remainder are simply evolving law, wether we like it or not.

Now for me the whole point is that seeing how the real inside view is like, we can actually understand it's ACTION better, if you use the rational action conjecture which suggest tha the action take is the one that is minimally speculative from the point of view of self-preservation.

This complexity constraint also explains STABILTY in a remarkable way, because to a bounded system, it's action is CONSTRAINED by the fact that from our point of view not all "mathematically realisable" possibilities are distinguishable! And to such a system the rational action conjecture of mine required the action to be invariant with respect to those possibilities!

This means these "paths" simply aren't part of whatever inference calculation you have, feynmann style path intergral or similar.

This means that the inside-actions, or naked actions of any system is BOUND to get simpler and simpler as it looses mass. But the external view is still complex, because the baggage there is physical with respect to the outside observer, but most of that baggage is something the system of study is invariant to. So in order to know what symmetres to apply, to get rid of the redundancy this idea will certainly help. Since it contains clear ideas and clear constraints. But it's still complicated of course.

This link I am suggesting, is totally absent in the standard framework, and this link is IMHO at least what makes the information theory including a sort of feedback to the context, and thus making it intrinsically relative; rather than just relative in the sene of a fixed relation with a kind of god-like background.

/Fredrik

 

[qsa]

ConardDJ, here is a website link that gives an interesting argument about physical and non-physical which gives a hint of what we have been talking about. The author is an excellent QFT teacher plus he has many unconventional research.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_2_klauber.pdf

 

[jal]

update:
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1028531
Media information for LHC running in 2009-2010

 

[tom.stoer]

Can we agree on a simpler statements:

1. If there is a difference between mathematical and physical, that difference can't be tested experimantally by the frogs inside the universe.

2. If universe is perfectly emulated, then frogs can't detect if it is real or perfectly emulated

3. Perfectly emulated system is isomorfic to a real one.

4. Hence it is absolutely irrelevant if we are emulated or not. In fact, the emulation is an argument for MUH: if there are universes which can emulate others, then all sorts of universes MUST exist

If we agree the theory of natural numbers is the same no matter if it is written by ink, or in PDF, or scratched on a stone, so mathematics is independent from the substance, then we must agree that it is irrelevant if it is emulated or not.

...

This is also an answer to tom.stoer (1,2,3,4)

I see your point. It seems rather straightforward but I still have problems with it.

Do you know the "Chinese Room" from Searle? Let there be a a room with a Chinese person locked inside and answering questions written in Chinese language. Now replace the chinese person with an english speaking person equipped with Chinese books and procedures written in English how to use them. Again you hand over questions written in Chinese language - now to the "room", not directly to the person. Assume that the questions and written answers are the same as before.

Question to you: in the latter case, who does really understand the Chinese language: the room, the system "room + books + person"? My answer would be neither, it's the person who prepared the experiment, wrote the books and procedures and set up the experiment!

Of course you can refuse to comment on this because it's not really a question regarding ToEs or physics in general but a question regarding consciousness, the mind-body-problem etc. You can respond that the emulation is not perfect. I don't claim that this analogon is perfect - far from it. I only want to illuminate why I still have problems to accept your statements 3 and 4. If two systems are isomorphic that does not automatically imply that they are identical. You can interpret this as mathematically identical, but not necessarily as ontologically identical.

Tom

 

[Dmitry67]

Of course, "Chinese room" depends on if you accept "Strong AI" or "Weak AI" hypotesis. But your argument is a good one. The only difference between 'real' and 'unreal' universe could be in the solution to the "Hard problem of consciousness", so 'unreal' universe can contain nothing but P-zombies.

 

[tom.stoer]

what are P-zombies?

 

[Dmitry67]

check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
it is closely related to the "Hard problem"

 

[tom.stoer]

OK, I agree that the Chinese room and the P-zombies are somehow related. I repeat my question: in the case of the "Chine room", who does really understand the Chinese language: the room, the system "room + books + person"?

 

[Gear300]

When is it that the LHC will start operating at or near its highest energy?

 

[Dmitry67]

OK, I agree that the Chinese room and the P-zombies are somehow related. I repeat my question: in the case of the "Chine room", who does really understand the Chinese language: the room, the system "room + books + person"?

Answer: entity "room + books + person"

Imagine human brain enlarged to a size of a city: you will be walking on the 'streets', looking at working neurons, asking: but WHAT EXACTLY is responsible for the qualia?

Imagine some conscious microbes-scientists living in your body. As scientists they will discover many interesting patterns: for example, activity during the day is higher then during the night, there is a strange 7-day pattern, when some signals (pain) comes into brain, soon there is a response sent to muscles. They will study cells and neurons, and they will get a lot of information about them. But they will not believe that all these neurons are conscious. As that consciousness is on another size and time scale, they will not be able to communicate with that conscious.

In fact, I am sure there is ALREADY a sort of cheneese room: it is a network of 2 types of nodes: Internet + humans. Human work not only as nodes, but also as senses: photocameras, youtube, forums, etc. They also process that information (by typing a word in Google pictures you can see how any object look like even there is no object recognition software)

'Thoughts' of that system exist in form of blog posts, emails, etc. Some fade, some spread over the whole network (much slower then we think, so it is on a different timescale). For elementary nodes (us) everything in that system is reducable to some elementary facts: emails, characters in the blogs etc. So it is very easy to deny the existence of somethign extra. It is very easy to say: "there is nothing except us - humans, computers and the link between them".

But it is exactly the cheneese room argument, or saying that there is nothing except the neurons in a perception of the microbe-scientist in our body. So I am sure that superconsciousness already exists on Earth but we will not be able to communicate with it, because it is on a different scale.

 

[tom.stoer]

OK, that's where I have a different opinion. For me the knowlede regarding Chinese language somehow disappeared from the system. I would say that it's not system "room + books + person", but the person who prepared the experiment.

Now let's come back to TOE: the question was if a mathematical system that is equivalent (isomorphic) to the universe, is identical with the universe. Again that's where we differ. I would say that I believe in some metaphysical entity which IS the universe (object, entity, stone, human, ...). A mathematical system being isomorphic to that universe is still different.

You can turn it the other way round and state that mathematics exists w/o any physical existence. Let's come back to my simple universe with only gravitational law. I do not believe that it exists in a physical sense "anywhere", but of course it exists in a mathematical sense. Therefore mathematical existence transcends physical existence.

I think there is nothing illegitimate or contradictory in your reasonung; it is simply the fact that I am not (yet) prepared for the dark side ...

 

[friend]

Now let's come back to TOE: the question was if a mathematical system that is equivalent (isomorphic) to the universe, is identical with the universe. Again that's where we differ. I would say that I believe in some metaphysical entity which IS the universe (object, entity, stone, human, ...). A mathematical system being isomorphic to that universe is still different.

The universe is something we observe or measure. Mathematics is something we calculate. The mathematics would be a kind of language or description of the universe. And no equation we could write would account for every single particle or field at any time. We use math to figure out different configurations or general features that we are interested in. Math only tells us that given some input some output results. It doesn't tell us that a given input IS the case.

 

[tom.stoer]

thanks

 

[Dmitry67]

The universe is something we observe or measure. Mathematics is something we calculate. The mathematics would be a kind of language or description of the universe. And no equation we could write would account for every single particle or field at any time. We use math to figure out different configurations or general features that we are interested in. Math only tells us that given some input some output results. It doesn't tell us that a given input IS the case.

It tells us if it IS a case - if initial conditions are included in the axiomatic system, or if initial conditions are null

 

[qsa]

Friend, the initial condition issue is a side advantage of the idea, and it is being explained as there is no need for it, for the theory is multiverse and all possible configurations are possible.

As to you tom, you have made the most beautiful statement so far in this discussion

“You can turn it the other way round and state that mathematics exists w/o any physical existence”

But if that is true, how this mathematical existence does manifest itself? It can not hang in thin of nothing and exist. Well then, I don’t need to repeat how its existence is manifested.

 

[qsa]

tom
As to the isomorphic issue you can look at it from different perspectives, I’ll give the easy one and leave the harder one to later. If I do have isomorphism then I can go to a computer and program the properties which I discovered and plot them so to speak, i.e. simulate. Notwithstanding accuracy and computer time issues, and so on. Let’s assume we can approximate and maybe we get a universe that small numbers of galaxies and algae appear. That would give you a strong hint, wouldn’t it? Now, if you get in argument with me about if a computer has enough power or the accuracy needed, then you have to admit that isomorphism issue was put on the shelf by you.

 

[moniker2]

OK, that's where I have a different opinion. For me the knowlede regarding Chinese language somehow disappeared from the system. I would say that it's not system "room + books + person", but the person who prepared the experiment.

Now let's come back to TOE: the question was if a mathematical system that is equivalent (isomorphic) to the universe, is identical with the universe. Again that's where we differ. I would say that I believe in some metaphysical entity which IS the universe (object, entity, stone, human, ...). A mathematical system being isomorphic to that universe is still different.

You can turn it the other way round and state that mathematics exists w/o any physical existence. Let's come back to my simple universe with only gravitational law. I do not believe that it exists in a physical sense "anywhere", but of course it exists in a mathematical sense. Therefore mathematical existence transcends physical existence.

I think there is nothing illegitimate or contradictory in your reasonung; it is simply the fact that I am not (yet) prepared for the dark side ...

do you think the toe could have holons of matter and energy?

 

[tom.stoer]

tom
As to the isomorphic issue you can look at it from different perspectives, I’ll give the easy one and leave the harder one to later. If I do have isomorphism then I can go to a computer and program the properties which I discovered and plot them so to speak, i.e. simulate. Notwithstanding accuracy and computer time issues, and so on. Let’s assume we can approximate and maybe we get a universe that small numbers of galaxies and algae appear. That would give you a strong hint, wouldn’t it? Now, if you get in argument with me about if a computer has enough power or the accuracy needed, then you have to admit that isomorphism issue was put on the shelf by you.

But that brings us back to the Chinese room. The question is if the output of the computer IS a universe (then the usual output devices are not sufficient) or if it's only isomorphic to our universe. Then my belief is that isomorphism is not the same as identity.

 

[tom.stoer]

... you have made the most beautiful statement so far in this discussion

“You can turn it the other way round and state that mathematics exists w/o any physical existence”

But if that is true, how this mathematical existence does manifest itself? It can not hang in thin of nothing and exist. Well then, I don’t need to repeat how its existence is manifested

It can. Or better: it need not manifest itself.

Let's make some simple examples:
Assume the twin prime conjecture is false; then there is a largest twin prime. Does this number EXIST even before anybody KNOWS its value?
Before the discovery of quantum mechanics and the work of Hilbert: Do you think that Hilbert spaces already existed 200 years ago?
Continuum hypothesis: as we now know both its proof and its disproof are impossible in ZFC. So there is the possibility that there exists sets S with cardinality |N| < |S| < |R|. Do you think that such a set EXISTS even if there is no construction?

I would say that modern mathematics provides some strong hints that its entities, theorems and other contents may exist w/o any physical manifestation. For me mathematics exists w/o physical representation (brain, paper, computer, ..., universe in the sense of MUH). But again: this is my belief and there's neither a proof nor a disproof.

 

[Dmitry67]

What if indirect arguments for MUH are true, say,

When TOE is discovered, it will be possible to write it without any word "baggage" and derive everything else from scratch;
Initial conditions are null

Would it help you to believe in MUH?

 

[tom.stoer]

It depends on the structure of that ToE.

If it is a "unique" framework containing axioms, theorems or something like that which indicate what I used to call "selection principle" then I would believe in the ToE but NOT in MUH.

If the ToE is a framework for producing theories together with a hint (I do not know how it can look like) that at least our universe (plus some others) can be derived, then I would start to believe in the existence of these other universes.

If the ToE is only the meta-framework and a statement that all consistent mathematical frameworks are physically existent "somewhere", then I would say (because the selection principle or hint is missing) the ToE (which is identical to MUH) is meaningless or empty and I would call it ToN.

=> I cannot answer your question unless I have an indication how that ToE would look like.

 

[friend]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems all mathematical formulae are hypotheticals,... meaning, IF you have some input, THEN you have some output. And so mathematical descriptions apply just as easily to fictitious situations as to real situations. You can just as easily calculate the trajectory of unicorns as to cannon balls. Math makes no distinction between fact and fiction.

 

[Dmitry67]

IF you have some input, THEN you have some output. And so mathematical descriptions apply just as easily to fictitious situations as to real situations. You can just as easily calculate the trajectory of unicorns as to cannon balls. Math makes no distinction between fact and fiction.

No, no, and no!
friend, what input is used to develop a theory of natural numbers? If it uses some input then you probably can provide another theory of natural numbers, where number 19 is not prime?

your unicorns vs cannon balls is just a variation of an argument about the initial conditions I answered before.

 

[friend]

No, no, and no!
friend, what input is used to develop a theory of natural numbers? If it uses some input then you probably can provide another theory of natural numbers, where number 19 is not prime?

your unicorns vs cannon balls is just a variation of an argument about the initial conditions I answered before.

Dude, do you honestly think you're going to find a theory that tells you the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, even those behind the cosmological event horizon? Are we going to find a ToE that predicts the human form with the right number of fingers, toes, eyes, and even my individual hair color? Will it predict all of human history? I seriously doubt that. I think the best to be expected is to determine generalities that describe what kinds of things are possible. And by definition generalities give you results based on input that is not determined by that generality. It's even worse, we'll probably only get at best a range of probable outcomes given an input. That doesn't sound isomorphic to a reality which definitely IS.

 

[Dmitry67]

friend, are you aware how MWI deals with these issues? multihistory theories can be deterministic but look random for all observers

 

[friend]

friend, are you aware how MWI deals with these issues? multihistory theories can be deterministic but look random for all observers

I think the MWI is nonsense. If some other possible universe does not have any affect on us, then it does not exist as far as we are concerned.

This MWI came about to explain the alternative paths in Feynman's path integral. But the formulation predicts that it takes ALL possible paths to make a reality. That means none of them exist apart from each other.

 

[Dmitry67]

Yes, all these branches exist. Looks like your argument is just an emotional one, because you are aware that MWI is consistent with the observations.

So I will reply you on the emotional level. Do you see how elegant MWI is? Look at a list of QM interpretations asking a question about the initial conditions.

In our world symmetry is broken many times. Random interpretations (CI, TI) do not have any problems with it, they can start from null initial conditions, but they are hated for being non-deterministic.

Deterministic interpretations (BM) look weird because they mean that I, typing this text, was pre-coded in the positions of the particles in the Big bang.

MWI is *the only* deterministic theory which can start from the null initial conditions (and multihistory is the price you have to pay for they wonderful combination)

 

[qsa]

The universe is something we observe or measure. Mathematics is something we calculate. The mathematics would be a kind of language or description of the universe. And no equation we could write would account for every single particle or field at any time. We use math to figure out different configurations or general features that we are interested in. Math only tells us that given some input some output results. It doesn't tell us that a given input IS the case.

thanks

It can. Or better: it need not manifest itself.

Let's make some simple examples:
Assume the twin prime conjecture is false; then there is a largest twin prime. Does this number EXIST even before anybody KNOWS its value?
Before the discovery of quantum mechanics and the work of Hilbert: Do you think that Hilbert spaces already existed 200 years ago?
Continuum hypothesis: as we now know both its proof and its disproof are impossible in ZFC. So there is the possibility that there exists sets S with cardinality |N| < |S| < |R|. Do you think that such a set EXISTS even if there is no construction?

I would say that modern mathematics provides some strong hints that its entities, theorems and other contents may exist w/o any physical manifestation. For me mathematics exists w/o physical representation (brain, paper, computer, ..., universe in the sense of MUH). But again: this is my belief and there's neither a proof nor a disproof.

Tom, I can debate about the nature of math and what it means when and where, but I have a more usefull comment

Tom, if you say that math can exist without physical, but physical is there and we find math in it (even worse, it is the only language that describes it). Doesn’t that strike you as odd coincident? Einstein put it in this way “the only thing that is incomprehensible about reality it is that it’s comprehensible” .What I mean is that math could have existed without physical but it had to appear with physical, and then describe physical, hmm.