Inform ToE

[SSDS]

Hello All!

E.g. (there were also Feynman, Penrouse, Wheeler, Fredkin, Toffoli, Kull, Margulis...) - in a number of his papers M. Tegmark puts forward the conjecture that our Universe is a "Mathematical Universe" when the "Theory of Everything" may be an "ensemble theory".

That’s correct, but the questions arisens – what is this "ensemble" (set)? What are it’s properties?

- On these questions somebody can find some answers in
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703043
V5.

Here also one can find some answers on:
- on the "Wheeler's line" - "How does something arise from nothing?" ;
- what is, rather possibly, "Big Bang" (including- to start our Universe, it seems that it can be enough to have a mass a little more then of the electron’s one);
what is psi - function;
- etc…

It would be noted, that the approach is rather unusual and so sometimes require some time to evaluate. Though I know a
people which evaluate it at once practically. Regrettably - they weren't
some "official journals" editors.

[Profpat]

Hello SSDS:

Welcome to the Toequest Forum. I took a quick look at your interesting article. I'll have to go back however to peruse it.

A couple of questions came to me when looking at it.

1) Could the universe have a beginning and an end? You proposed only 2 possibilities; no beginning no end, and a beginning and no end.

2) Do you believe information could be lost in the black hole or stored somewhere in a parallel universe?

I have my own theory which you may wish to look at: ( http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...2803-idea.html ), you'll have to access it through a PDF File, or go to post # 40 on that thread.

Among other things, it suggest that information may be stored within the proton using a Venn Diagram and set theory to explain.

I would be interested in any comments or questions you may have.

Best to you, and again welcome to the Forum,

Pat

[SSDS]

Hello Pat

(1) Sorry for a delay in the answer. I hope you have read the paper in arXiv link http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043
in my first post more carefully now-?
So to your 1);2). These questions can appear because of I was forced to START from some "known" things, e.g. - Universe , World, etc. that have (or can have) an "age" Though a good soldier Schvejk’s fellow said 90 years ago:
"… After all – somehow indeed was! Because of never was so that at all in no way was".

One of main ideas of the information approach is that "ultimately infinite" set "Information" exists always when any element of this set in the state "here and now" contains the information about every other element in any "time", as well as on itself in any "time" in past and future. The "time" appears only if in some system of the elements (sub-sets in the main set) some cause-effect relations appear so this sub-set becomes be "stable". One of such a sub-sets is our World which, as it is widely conjectured, was originated 13 Gyears ago. And all information about creation and all versions of the development of this World "was known" , i.e. existed, "long before" the creation and exists now; – it can not be annihilated in principle.
Though on the fundamental questions as "Could the universe have a beginning and an end?, etc. " – now nobody knows the answer.

But the suggested approach points out – where one should seek for the answer.

As well as on the questions on "black holes", "parallel universes", etc. I should remind (see the paper) here, that the World’s development is a random process when next step is a realization of a specific state from "ready menu", when in future the World exists (now!) in the infinity of states – one can say, may be, "exists in the infinity of parallel universes".

(2) As to your thread
___________
("An Idea" your today post ) "According to string theory, if we could examine these particles with even greater precision—a precision many orders of magnitude beyond our present technological capacity—we would find that each is not pointlike but instead consists of a tiny, one-dimensional loop. Like an infinitely thin rubber band, each particle contains a vibrating, oscillating, dancing filament that physicists have named a string.
……
The above is from Brian Greene..."
_______

In the paper a physical model is suggested, where the particles are close-loop cyclic dynamic algorithms. It isn't impossible that it relates by some way to the string theory.

SSDS

[Profpat]

Hi SSDS;

I should first say I’m an accounting professor and not an information scientist, and therefore, I don’t feel qualified to review your technical article. Have you had it published in a peer reviewed publication? If not I would suggest you do.

Having disclosed that disclaimer, let me give you some general comments regarding your well thought out article.

I do believe, like you, that the original fundamental substance may be viewed as an IS ( information structure ). My thought is that the original substance was In-Formation, rather than chaotic.

Additionally, I also agree that information is both static ( fixed ) and dynamic. I think all information is stored somewhere. If it is stored nowhere else, than within the particle itself. I also think that not only that the world may to some extent be similar to a computer, but also man himself.

“ In the beginning was the word…..”

You mention that the logical singularity of the UBS is infinite. Why is it infinite?

Yes I think information is discrete and so is the fundamental particle. That is the quanta in quantum mechanics, the foundation behind the QM Theory.

Now may I ask you to look at the first post of my thread An Idea, rather than the last post. Again it’s located at:
( http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-toe-theory/2803-idea.html ) You’ll have to access it through a PDF FILE or go to post #40. Any questions or comments can be posted at that thread.

Best to you SSDS

Pat

[SSDS]

Hello, Pat

(1) ***I should first say I’m … not an information scientist, and therefore, I don’t feel qualified to review your technical article. Have you had it published in a peer reviewed publication? If not I would suggest you do.***

- (i) – to understand the concept suggested in http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and may be the first couple of pages in V1), there isn’t a necessity to be "an information scientist" – it doesn’t use practically traditional concept ("theory") of the information. Shannon’s theory in reality is a theory of the communications and relates to rather small region of the Information concept;
- (ii) – as I wrote in my first post in this thread "…I know a
people which evaluate it at once practically. Regrettably - they weren't some "official journals" editors." So now there aren’t of peer reviewed publications except the arXiv ones . Though in Orlando the conference EIC 2008 runs now and there should be my paper in the Proceedings. But since this conference is some specifically cybernetic event, this paper doesn’t contain the physical model practically.

(2) ***You mention that the logical singularity of the UBS is infinite. Why is it infinite? ***
- Because of the UBS contains the information about total (about all/every elements) set "Information", even these elements (ultimately number of) – as to UBS - don’t (but can exist) exist. That seems as some non-logical, but is really true. Only a little paradoxical…

(3) ***Now may I ask you to look at the first post of my thread An Idea, rather than the last post.***

I looked at the PDF text briefly. Sorry – the inform concept hasn’t now the possibility to be applied to your particle model immediately. Now all that we have – that any particle, including the quarks, is some cyclic informational closed loop structure, some analog of closed loop of a system of electronic logical elements that infinitely repeats the cycle; when instead of transistors, diodes, "and/or/no" chips, etc., some "verbal" statements are used. All World is the structure of words , but these words are hard enough so we can go, fly, build, etc. Though we don’t know the language till now, we can on some level "decode" this language by using, first of all, the mathematics…
All the best!

[SSDS]

Congratulations with Xmas coming!

Now next iteration of the inform concept in the Physics appeared:
http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819

Cheers

[SSDS]

Now some little edition of the inform concept appeared:
http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819, V2. Including – the title, so now it is possible to make a references on the article…

Cheers

[SSDS]

Next iteration of the infoconcept - http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V3, appeared. Main change is in sections 2.2.1 (Physics) and "Discussion and conclusion".
It seems that Quantum mechanics and Special Relativity theory are something the same…

Cheers

[SSDS]

To: All

It seems that it would be useful to add to the SSDS posts above some comments relating to well known "Many World" concept.

Formally this concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the SSDS’s arXiv links above – both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the arXiv links.

But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [Shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set.

At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions (see also SSDZ thread http://www.philosophychatforum.com/v...127325#p127325
in "Odds&Ends" section) - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc.

Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I" [plato.stanford above].

There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds. And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future.
Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"…

Cheers