Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:Energy is the material and information the design of the material.

This, if you turn it on its head, is the gist of field theories, like the Higg's field. GR is basically a field theory. The idea is that there is something substantial, a field, which is basically rippled or contorted. It is these contortions, the design, if you like the information, that is the source of energy. It's a bit like a surfer has the energy to ride down a wave. If you hit water hard enough, you can create a whirlpool. In effect, that is what the Higg's boson is.

uwot wrote: Obvious Leo wrote:
My process model is exclusively an information theory since I literally model the universe as a non-linear computation. Therefore I regard information and energy as entirely synonymous constructs.


Fine. But what is it and how does it work?

Energy is energy is information. The whole idea of irreducibility means that it admits of no further definition but the irreducible component of a computation model is that the irreducible unit is a time interval, since a computation is a solely temporal construct. In my model I call this irreducible time interval a monad and model these monads as mathematical points on a continuously emerging and self-generating wave. The monad has only two physical properties, these being its information/energy content and the duration of its existence in this state. Thus we say that each monad in the continuously emerging continuum simple BECOMES its own next monad in a different informational state and the new informational state is causally determined by the behaviour of all the other monads in the continuum, this influence being propagated at the speed of light. Thus the speed of light is simply the processing speed of the cosmic computation, or the speed of causality at the Planck scale. However what drives the self-causal mechanism towards the lower entropy state is the asymmetrical relationship between gravity and time because information is physical and thus the duration of existence of each monad in any given state is determined by the amount of information it contains. This is a perfectly logical and mandated conclusion from GR in a spaceless universe. If this notion is translated into Conway's model it's not all that hard to visualise how such monads can encode for subatomic particles at an emergent level and how these particles then go on to encode for more complex matter is reasonably well known to physics. The important thing to understand is that at the Planck scale this process is entirely self-determining solely because of gravity and it is only at the emergent level where physical "properties" become apparent. In other words it is not the "laws of physics" which make reality but reality which determines the emergent order which we define in terms of the "laws of physics".

uwot wrote: If you can show me that your model isn't undetermined,

This model is completely deterministic but non-Newtonian. The cosmos is a computer without a programme which quite literally makes it up as it goes along. Such self-determining non-linear process ALWAYS lead to a decrease in the total entropy of the system whereas in the Newton/Laplace model of determinism the gigantic unwinding clock mandates for a continuous increase in the overall entropy. This completely contradicts the evidence because the big bang was HOT and the universe has been cooling down and self-creating increasingly more complex informational substructures within itself ever since, including us.

uwot wrote:the "gravity/time continuum hypothesis yields a testable prediction",

No scientific hypothesis can ever be proven true but a dodgy one must always be falsifiable. I have outlined the protocols for an experiment which falsifies the spacetime hypothesis in my synopsis but as far as I'm concerned this was already done by Michelson-Morley and by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. The EPR paradox can only be explained if the Cartesian space is an observer effect and so too can every other paradox and metaphysical absurdity in physics. The subatomic world starts to look more like a Bohmian one when the behaviour of subatomic particles is understood as being chaotic rather than random and there is a perfect synergy with GR as well because we already that the behaviour of all cosmological bodies is chaotic rather than random. Physics is merely conflating non-predictability with undetermined but any weather forecaster knows that this is bullshit.

uwot wrote: Well, if time is a measure of change, then it goes without saying. However, if you partition reality into packets, even really tiny ones, you necessarily introduce spooky action at a distance, albeit a teeny-weeny distance,

You're not paying attention, uwot. Distance is a purely epistemic notion in this model and Bell's theorem looks exactly like a statement of the bloody obvious. Our notions of locality and non-locality are products of our own minds because we are applying a spatio-temporal extension to what are purely temporal phenomena. REALITY IS NOT A PLACE.

uwot wrote:Fine and dandy to a mathematician, they don't need to know what causes gravity,

Nothing causes gravity. If time and gravity are simply two different ways of expressing the same thing then this inversely logarithmic relationship makes gravity/time the causER and not the causEE. The entire notion of regarding gravity as a "force" is completely wrong-headed because the gravity/time relationship becomes the sole self-organising principle of the universe. At the Planck scale nothing else is needed.

Greta wrote: Certainly it appears that phenomena don't always operate linearly, but why? When proportionality of input and output is skewed, what's going on?

Non-linear dynamic systems theory is a mature science with a rigorous methodology and it is used to model every naturally occurring system except for those in physics, which seems to be trapped in a Newtonian time-warp. That physical reality evolves from the simple to the complex is a law of nature as fundamental as 1+1=2 and why it should do this is perfectly well understood. In a non-Newtonian world all determinism is non-linear and chaotically determined systems evolve from the simple to the complex purely because they cannot do otherwise. However this makes the problem of physics not only metaphysical but also meta-mathematical because Newton's classical mathematics cannot model such a self-determining reality. Einstein eventually came to this conclusion not long before he died but Henri Poincare had already pointed this out half a century earlier when he emphatically rejected the Minkowski model as bollocks. He was working on the three-body problem which had been around since Newton and was trying to develop the new mathematical tools which would be needed to solve it. Unfortunately he died before he got very far with it but it was Poincare who laid the groundwork for the future development of fractal geometry, the mathematical system which underpins all of complexity theory. It will also underpin the new physics when the geeks get their heads out of their arses and understand that the universe is a PROCESS.

Greta wrote: Energy is the material and information the design of the material. What of high energy, low order states like atomic bomb blasts as compared with low energy but highly ordered operations of computers? Leo, surely there's some fundamental difference - that energy and information cannot be boiled down to one or the other or be treated as synonymous, but they have more of a complementary relationship, like light and shadow.

I don't think you're getting the distinction between linear and non-linear determinism, Greta, and this distinction is central to what I'm banging on about. Newtonian physics is inescapably a Platonist or creationist paradigm where the behaviour of matter and energy is seen to be the product of transcendent cause. This model is both Leibnizian and Spinozan because it defines a universe of immanent cause which is sufficient to both its own existence as well as to the existence of every complex physical entity it contains, including life and mind.

attofishpi wrote:The chap that made the video in my OP

The bloke that made the video in your OP was on the ball, atto, and he made a very telling comment which accords perfectly with my own model. He said that the speed of light is the speed of causality and this is a very significant point because it ties in time, gravity and the rate of change in a physical system with the speed of light. It accords very nicely with my own definition of the speed of light as the processing speed of the cosmic computation and once the exact relationship between gravity and time is understood we can see that this makes the speed of light the most inconstant speed in the universe, being variable all the way down to the Planck scale. This is what brings our universe to life in all its splendour and complexity.

Arising_uk wrote:

Greta wrote: Certainly it appears that phenomena don't always operate linearly, but why? When proportionality of input and output is skewed, what's going on?

I'm not sure what you meant by 'operate linearly' but if it means non-sequentially I think nonlinear does not mean this in this instance but stand to be corrected in both instances.

Correct. Non-linear does NOT mean non-sequential. In chaotically determined systems effects are always preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion. However the order and complexity of such systems is self-generating rather than imposed by a programme from outwith the system itself, which of course is the assumption in physics.

uwot wrote:

Greta wrote:Energy is the material and information the design of the material.

This, if you turn it on its head, is the gist of field theories, like the Higg's field. GR is basically a field theory. The idea is that there is something substantial, a field, which is basically rippled or contorted. It is these contortions, the design, if you like the information, that is the source of energy. It's a bit like a surfer has the energy to ride down a wave. If you hit water hard enough, you can create a whirlpool. In effect, that is what the Higg's boson is.

This bogus field ontology has been around for ever and nobody has ever succeeded in making much of it. Fields do not make reality. Reality makes itself but the way in which it does this is something which an astute observer can model in terms of fields, waves, forces, particles etc. None of these mathematical notions have any ontological status but they do attest to the remarkable ability of the human mind to linearise the non-linear.

Obvious Leo wrote:Energy is energy is information. ...

... we say that each monad in the continuously emerging continuum simply BECOMES its own next monad in a different informational state and the new informational state is causally determined by the behaviour of all the other monads in the continuum, this influence being propagated at the speed of light. Thus the speed of light is simply the processing speed of the cosmic computation, or the speed of causality at the Planck scale. However what drives the self-causal mechanism towards the lower entropy state is the asymmetrical relationship between gravity and time because information is physical and thus the duration of existence of each monad in any given state is determined by the amount of information it contains. This is a perfectly logical and mandated conclusion from GR in a spaceless universe. If this notion is translated into Conway's model it's not all that hard to visualise how such monads can encode for subatomic particles at an emergent level and how these particles then go on to encode for more complex matter is reasonably well known to physics. The important thing to understand is that at the Planck scale this process is entirely self-determining solely because of gravity and it is only at the emergent level where physical "properties" become apparent. In other words it is not the "laws of physics" which make reality but reality which determines the emergent order which we define in terms of the "laws of physics".

Leo, how do envisage the interaction of gravity and information?

Energy is the material and information the design of the material. What of high energy, low order states like atomic bomb blasts as compared with low energy but highly ordered operations of computers? Leo, surely there's some fundamental difference - that energy and information cannot be boiled down to one or the other or be treated as synonymous, but they have more of a complementary relationship, like light and shadow.

Obvious Leo wrote:I don't think you're getting the distinction between linear and non-linear determinism, Greta, and this distinction is central to what I'm banging on about.

I need more concrete clarification of that question, Leo. If energy and the information are the same thing then how do you explain the vast fundamental difference between the bomb blast and computer as per my above quote?

Greta wrote:Leo, how do envisage the interaction of gravity and information?

Gravity determines the duration of the quantum time interval in a given informational state which means this interval operates as a simple binary logic gate. The moment NOW becomes its own next moment NOW but it is both ACTOR and ACTED UPON. A simple analogy for this on the macro scale would be either gas molecules in Brownian motion or galaxies in relativistic gravitational motion. Fractal dimensions are scale invariant so determinism at the Planck scale MUST be the same as it is at the cosmological scale. In fact if you think about it carefully the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is actually a statement about gravity because we can't specify both the location and the momentum of a galaxy at the same time any more than we can do so for a subatomic particle. This has nothing to do with randomness but is simply a fact of nature which even Newton was aware of. The motion of every single physical entity in the universe is causally determined by the motion of every other and that's it. This motion is NOT determined by laws of unknown transcendent origin because the entire system is simply self-determining. It's far too simple to be wrong.

Greta wrote: I need more concrete clarification of that question, Leo. If energy and the information are the same thing then how do you explain the vast fundamental difference between the bomb blast and computer as per my above quote?

I don't really understand what you're asking, Greta. In a fission chain reaction the encoded order of the information which defines the atom is catastrophically released in a sudden increase of entropy. I can't quite see what this has to do with computers which mostly don't generate information at all but merely process it according to an algorithm. You could say that the informational complexity of the system lies in the mind of the person who wrote the code.

Obvious Leo wrote:...the new informational state is causally determined by the behaviour of all the other monads in the continuum...

How?

uwot wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:...the new informational state is causally determined by the behaviour of all the other monads in the continuum...

How?

A monad in a higher energy state simply dissipates energy into monads in a lower energy state but in the case of monads which encode for matter particles we can simply think of this occurring as a cyclical process where the same code simply repeats itself over and over again, like Conway's gliders.
Thus instead of thinking of the electron as a little piece of "stuff" we can think of it as a process being maintained in stasis until such time as it interacts with other matter and then either absorbs or emits a photon as in information carrier. This aspect of the Standard Model is exquisite because modelling forces in terms of particle exchange is perfectly consistent with a computational model where the processes are embedded and hierarchical. Where the SM goes pear-shaped is where it tries to model such a process in a Cartesian space. It falls over its own feet with 3 dimensions surplus to requirements while the only dimension of any significance is completely ignored.

Obvious Leo wrote:A monad in a higher energy state simply dissipates energy into monads in a lower energy state...

How does it do this?

uwot wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:A monad in a higher energy state simply dissipates energy into monads in a lower energy state...

How does it do this?

It just does. All physical systems tend towards an equilibrium state so this can be seen as a foundational principle of causality at the Planck scale.

Obvious Leo wrote:It just does.

Kinetically?

uwot wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:It just does.

Kinetically?

Yes. Kinetically, inasmuch as the switching of a logic gate can be defined as kinetically determined. It all gets a bit conceptually challenging to think of our ordinary notions of "motion" in this way because matter and energy do not move "through" time but rather move "within" time. Naturally the observer of such motion also moves within time and thus when we observe the world we observe it from the inside looking out, and looking out in this case means looking backwards down the arrow of elapsed time. Essentially what we observe is a holographic projection from the temporal boundary of a continuously self-determining reality and it is precisely this holographic projection which our models of physics are modelling. Essentially physics is looking into a temporal mirror and then modelling the universe as if it were observing it from outside of it. Interestingly enough, Newton seemed to be aware of the fact that this god's-eye referential frame was illusory but Einstein was forever confounded by it. That the moon could only be there when somebody was observing it tormented him until his dying day.

I think that shifting the blame of actions down to a theorized "Plank level" is merely cheating the audience and begging the question. It is similar to claiming that there was a Big Bang wherein all of the laws of physics were different or nonexistent. It amounts to superstition (the superimposing of mental stitching in order to connect the dots and claim knowledge). It is a form of scapegoating.

JSS wrote:I think that shifting the blame of actions down to a theorized "Plank level" is merely cheating the audience and begging the question. It is similar to claiming that there was a Big Bang wherein all of the laws of physics were different or nonexistent. It amounts to superstition (the superimposing of mental stitching in order to connect the dots and claim knowledge). It is a form of scapegoating.

Thing is, reality doesn't care what we apes think or the games we play. It just is, and the Planck scale is the theorised smallest scale of existence, whether we like it or not. Just as subatomic particles were theorised before they were observed and created effects that we could not explain until their discovery, if there are dynamics at Planck scale, they are surely behind at least some of the phenomena we've so far not been able to explain.

Planck scale dynamics may or may not be real. Maybe quarks really are the smallest division of reality? However, the possibility exists and may one day be tested irregardless of one's preferred approach.

Greta wrote:It just is

That is what Moses said. When you can't explain something merely say "it just is what it is".

And that is fine for religions. But for science, not so much. Science is about WHY things are happening, not merely that they are. People die, "it is what is it is". But science is about why they are dying .. what is killing them.

If there is a Plank level to existence, which there certainly is not, WHY is it there? What is going on such that there would be such a thing? If those questions are not to be answered, then why bother with science at all. We could all stop with Christianity.

Greta wrote:if there are dynamics at Planck scale, they are surely behind at least some of the phenomena we've so far not been able to explain.

And that is the point. The question is not being answered. Instead it is as the anceint Hindu: "The world is upheld in the ocean by an elephant standing on a turtles back." "And what is holding up the turtle?" "Another turtle. It is turtles all the way down."

That was sufficient to stop further inquiry for thousands of years.

Greta wrote:Planck scale dynamics may or may not be real. Maybe quarks really are the smallest division of reality? However, the possibility exists and may one day be tested irregardless of one's preferred approach.

In fact, they aren't. But that isn't my point. My point is that so far in this thread it seems to be merely a slight of hand shifting of blame to a more obscure position wherein one declares, "it just is".

That isn't science and really isn't much philosophy either. It is more religion: "just accept it on faith that we know!".

I don't have that kind of faith.

uwot wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Thanks uwot, i have checked out your site in the past. The chap that made the video in my OP also explained it using CGI in a different vid - was easier to understand than your static cartoon..!

Ah well. Do you have a link?

Sorry wot had a search earlier today...no luck, it basically states how regular events on a 'stationary' point such as a 4 piston engine, continue, if something is passing the faster it goes the less cycle on the engine cylinders, to the point that at the speed of light it is only a single moment in time (for the photon).

Leo, was going to post this in the 'multiverse' thread, but.. When you scope down to the binary ultimate level of space, is it really ultimate, i mean if 1 is true, an event, then can we not have zeroes for the stretches of existence that we cannot ascertain. In other words, if there are zeroes - no events but still space, then what is dark energy\matter is there any correlation?