**Next message:**Joe Dees: "RE: Extremism redux"**Previous message:**scerir: "what is IT?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Geometrodynamics, quantum fields, symmetry,

supersymmetry, topological quantum fields,

strings, superstrings, branes.

And now also: pre-geometry, ge-bits, topoi,

algorithmic-informational ontologies,

categorifications, logical fields.

Physical things become more and more abstract.

The mathscape. Or Plato's revenge?

But Aristotle already said that all things

go from material [hylê] to form [eidos].

And Heisenberg wrote: "The underlying structure

of phenomena is not given by material objects,

as are Democritus' atoma, but by the form

determining the objects. Ideas are more essential

than objects".

But Einstein noticed: ³As far as the laws of

mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;

as far as they are certain, they do not refer to

reality².

David Mermin now says: ³Fields in empty space have

physical reality, the medium that supports them

does not. Quantum correlations have physical reality,

that which they correlate does not².

And John Baez writes: ³Can philosophers really

contribute to the project of reconciling general

relativity and quantum field theory? Or is this a

technical business best left to the experts? I would

argue for the former. General relativity and quantum

field theory are based on some profound insights about

the nature of reality. These insights are crystallized

in the form of mathematics, but there is a limit to

how much progress we can make by just playing around

with this mathematics. We need to go back to the

insights behind general relativity and quantum field

theory, learn to hold them together in our minds,

and dare to imagine a world more strange, more

beautiful, but ultimately more reasonable than our

current theories of it. For this daunting task,

philosophical reflection is bound to be of help².

Von Weizsaecker said that "Nature is earlier than

man, but man is earlier than natural science".

Suggesting some morphism between neural nets and

logical fields?

For now: correlations, just correlations.

At the most: some morphism between mathematical

and logical objects and ontologies.

Like these...

Christof Schmidhuber

³Strings from Logic²

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0011065

What are strings made of? The possibility is

discussed that strings are purely mathematical

objects, made of logical axioms. More precisely,

proofs in simple logical calculi are represented

by graphs that can be interpreted as the Feynman

diagrams of certain large-N field theories.

Each vertex represents an axiom. Strings arise,

because these large-N theories are dual to string

theories. These "logical quantum field theories"

map theorems into the space of functions of two

parameters: N and the coupling constant.

Undecidable theorems might be related to

nonperturbative field theory effects.

Jurgen Schmidhuber

³A Computer Scientist's View of Life,

the Universe, and Everything²

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9904050

Is the universe computable? If so, it may be much

cheaper in terms of information requirements to

compute all computable universes instead of just ours.

I apply basic concepts of Kolmogorov complexity

theory to the set of possible universes, and chat

about perceived and true randomness, life,

generalization, and learning in a given universe.

Max Tegmark

³Is the theory of everything merely the ultimate

ensemble theory?²

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9704009

We discuss some physical consequences of what might

be called "the ultimate ensemble theory", where

not only worlds corresponding to say different

sets of initial data or different physical

constants are considered equally real, but also

worlds ruled by altogether different equations.

The only postulate in this theory is that all

structures that exist mathematically exist also

physically, by which we mean that in those complex

enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs),

these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as

existing in a physically "real" world.

We find that it is far from clear that this simple

theory, which has no free parameters whatsoever,

is observationally ruled out.

The predictions of the theory take the form of

probability distributions for the outcome of

experiments, which makes it testable. In addition,

it may be possible to rule it out by comparing

its a priori predictions for the observable

attributes of nature (the particle masses,

the dimensionality of spacetime, etc) with

what is observed.

Max Tegmark

³Does the universe in fact contain almost

no information?²

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9603008

At first sight, an accurate description of the state

of the universe appears to require a mind-bogglingly

large and perhaps even infinite amount of information,

even if we restrict our attention to a small subsystem

such as a rabbit. In this paper, it is suggested that

most of this information is merely apparent, as seen

from our subjective viewpoints, and that the algorithmic

information content of the universe as a whole is close

to zero. It is argued that if the Schroedinger equation

is universally valid, then decoherence together with

the standard chaotic behavior of certain non-linear

systems will make the universe appear extremely complex

to any self-aware subsets that happen to inhabit it now,

even if it was in a quite simple state shortly after

the big bang. For instance, gravitational instability

would amplify the microscopic primordial density

fluctuations that are required by the Heisenberg uncertainty

principle into quite macroscopic inhomogeneities, forcing

the current wavefunction of the universe to contain

such Byzantine superpositions as our planet being in many

macroscopically different places at once. Since decoherence

bars us from experiencing more than one macroscopic reality,

we would see seemingly complex constellations of stars etc,

even if the initial wavefunction of the universe was

perfectly homogeneous and isotropic.

Reginald T. Cahill, Christopher M. Klinger

³Self-Referential Noise as a Fundamental Aspect

of Reality²

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9905082

Noise is often used in the study of open systems,

such as in classical Brownian motion and in Quantum

Dynamics, to model the influence of the environment.

However generalising results from Goedel and Chaitin

in mathematics suggests that systems that are sufficiently

rich that self-referencing is possible contain intrinsic

randomness. We argue that this is relevant to modelling

the universe, even though it is by definition a closed

system. We show how a three-dimensional process-space

may arise, as a Prigogine dissipative structure, from a

non-geometric order-disorder model driven by, what is

termed, self-referential noise.

Reginald T. Cahill, Christopher M. Klinger, Kirsty Kitto

³Process Physics: Modelling Reality as Self-Organising

Information²

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0009023

The new Process Physics models reality as self-organising

relational information and takes account of the limitations

of logic, discovered by Goedel and extended by Chaitin,

by using the concept of self-referential noise.

Space and quantum physics are emergent and unified,

and described by a Quantum Homotopic Field Theory of

fractal topological defects embedded in a three dimensional

fractal process-space.

-scerir

³Gravitation is not responsible for

people falling in love² (A.E.)

**Next message:**Joe Dees: "RE: Extremism redux"**Previous message:**scerir: "what is IT?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:19 MDT
*