Current Essay Contest
Previous Contests
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
Spring 2009
Special Thanks to Bruce & Astrid McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
Spring 2008
read/discuss • winners
The essay contest is currently closed
Previous Contests
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
Spring 2009
Special Thanks to Bruce & Astrid McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
Spring 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
FQXi FORUM
September 2, 2010
CATEGORY:
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest
[back]
TOPIC: The Ultimate Physics of Number Counting by Andreas Martin Lisewski [refresh]
TOPIC: The Ultimate Physics of Number Counting by Andreas Martin Lisewski [refresh]
Essay Abstract
This essay puts forward the idea that the elementary physical process in the universe is the counting procedure of natural numbers. If true, it would imply that the ultimate possibility in physics is the discovery of this archetypal and fundamental numerical order in nature. In pursuing this astounding idea with methods from modal logic and set theory, it is argued that the number counting process may indeed be sufficient for a complete quantum description of the evolving universe.
Author Bio
The author studied physics and mathematics at the University of Hamburg. In 2003 he earned a Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the Technical University Munich and at the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics. After an intermission as an entrepreneur in artificial intelligence software design he returned to academia in 2004 to pursue research in computational biology.
Download Essay PDF File
report post as inappropriate
This essay puts forward the idea that the elementary physical process in the universe is the counting procedure of natural numbers. If true, it would imply that the ultimate possibility in physics is the discovery of this archetypal and fundamental numerical order in nature. In pursuing this astounding idea with methods from modal logic and set theory, it is argued that the number counting process may indeed be sufficient for a complete quantum description of the evolving universe.
Author Bio
The author studied physics and mathematics at the University of Hamburg. In 2003 he earned a Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the Technical University Munich and at the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics. After an intermission as an entrepreneur in artificial intelligence software design he returned to academia in 2004 to pursue research in computational biology.
Download Essay PDF File
report post as inappropriate
Infinity is only exciting toward the end - but we have renormalization to ruin even that.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Mr. Lisewski,
Thank you for an extremely interesting essay. If I understand your ideas correctly, they offer possibilities for gaining a deeper understanding of the processes by which the physical universe evolves, which, in turn, has a profound bearing on our understanding of many aspects of Nature, not the least of those being the nature of time. I believe it can be successfully argued that what traditionally has been thought of and referred to as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe. The great challenge is to find a way to describe the evolution of the universe in purely Machian, relational terms without introducing a separate external, classical, notion of "time" in the process of doing so. You ideas appear to hold out interesting possibilities along these lines.
Although it may not be immediately apparent, I believe that there is a symbiotic connection between the ideas expressed in your essay and those which may be found in my own essay, 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' which appears elsewhere among the current FQXi collection of essays, as well as with related ideas on the nature of time which may be found here.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for an extremely interesting essay. If I understand your ideas correctly, they offer possibilities for gaining a deeper understanding of the processes by which the physical universe evolves, which, in turn, has a profound bearing on our understanding of many aspects of Nature, not the least of those being the nature of time. I believe it can be successfully argued that what traditionally has been thought of and referred to as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe. The great challenge is to find a way to describe the evolution of the universe in purely Machian, relational terms without introducing a separate external, classical, notion of "time" in the process of doing so. You ideas appear to hold out interesting possibilities along these lines.
Although it may not be immediately apparent, I believe that there is a symbiotic connection between the ideas expressed in your essay and those which may be found in my own essay, 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' which appears elsewhere among the current FQXi collection of essays, as well as with related ideas on the nature of time which may be found here.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
J.C.N. Smith,
yes, my idea in this essay is that the fundamental structure in the universe becomes a process rather than an (elementary) particle. As I argued, this process is likely to be the number counting process.
Thank you for pointing to your work.
report post as inappropriate
yes, my idea in this essay is that the fundamental structure in the universe becomes a process rather than an (elementary) particle. As I argued, this process is likely to be the number counting process.
Thank you for pointing to your work.
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Andreas Martin Lisewski,
I think your essay is excellent. You take a theoretical physics vision of the universe and bring awareness into the fold. I have wondered in the past about the kind of mathematics that will be necessary to go beyond the analysis of mechanical type effects and begin to represent the development of intelligence as a natural process developing toward greater complexity as the universe evolved. Your work is an important contribution to finding a new kind of path for analyzing the complete nature of the universe.
James
report post as inappropriate
I think your essay is excellent. You take a theoretical physics vision of the universe and bring awareness into the fold. I have wondered in the past about the kind of mathematics that will be necessary to go beyond the analysis of mechanical type effects and begin to represent the development of intelligence as a natural process developing toward greater complexity as the universe evolved. Your work is an important contribution to finding a new kind of path for analyzing the complete nature of the universe.
James
report post as inappropriate
Dear Andreas,
My congratulations on the challenge you have tried to pick up in this essay.
Unfortunately, I was not able to discern any physical content in the paper. Could you please give some more details on that?
Good luck with the contest!
Steven Oostdijk
report post as inappropriate
My congratulations on the challenge you have tried to pick up in this essay.
Unfortunately, I was not able to discern any physical content in the paper. Could you please give some more details on that?
Good luck with the contest!
Steven Oostdijk
report post as inappropriate
Steven,
The essay explores how far can we get if we assume that the fundamental physical process in the universe is the counting process of natural numbers. I argue that with assumption we can reasonably approach fundamental physics problems such as (1) the pointer state problem in quantum mechanics; (2) the wave-function collapse in quantum mechanics; (3) the apparent continuity of the space manifold and its three-dimensionality; (4) the origin of geometry, locality and causality; (5) the quantum-classical transition without an external, classical environment; (6) the self-referential nature of physical observations.
Thank you.
report post as inappropriate
The essay explores how far can we get if we assume that the fundamental physical process in the universe is the counting process of natural numbers. I argue that with assumption we can reasonably approach fundamental physics problems such as (1) the pointer state problem in quantum mechanics; (2) the wave-function collapse in quantum mechanics; (3) the apparent continuity of the space manifold and its three-dimensionality; (4) the origin of geometry, locality and causality; (5) the quantum-classical transition without an external, classical environment; (6) the self-referential nature of physical observations.
Thank you.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Andreas,
Natural numbers do not include negative ones. While your approach seems to start from an idea, I dealt with related questions from a quite different perspective. May I ask you for a comparison?
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Natural numbers do not include negative ones. While your approach seems to start from an idea, I dealt with related questions from a quite different perspective. May I ask you for a comparison?
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
James, thanks for your comment.
Eckard, I briefly read over your essay but could not find any obvious parallels to my text. Can you be more specific?
report post as inappropriate
Eckard, I briefly read over your essay but could not find any obvious parallels to my text. Can you be more specific?
report post as inappropriate
Dear Andreas Martin,
very interesting point of view with intriguing observations. Here's one thing I don't understand: the "structural unfolding" of the natural numbers generates a rooted tree. As a relation, this is antisymmetric. On the other hand, the proximity relation is symmetric. So how can these two Kripe frames be bisimilar?
In structural set theory terms, the question is the following: the natural numbers are a deeply nested set, but do not contain self-references. On the other hand, thinking of a proximity relation as a membership relation, it is inherently self-referential.
[I just learned a lot of this stuff for the first time--your essay was a great opportunity for this--so I'm still somewhat shaky, but I hope the question makes sense.]
Finally, the contest rules state that "the entry should differ substantially from any previously published piece by the author". Your essay however has substantial overlap with your paper arXiv:quant-ph/0412047, not only in content, but even in language. So where does your essay provide new insights into any aspect of this?
all the best, Tobias
report post as inappropriate
very interesting point of view with intriguing observations. Here's one thing I don't understand: the "structural unfolding" of the natural numbers generates a rooted tree. As a relation, this is antisymmetric. On the other hand, the proximity relation is symmetric. So how can these two Kripe frames be bisimilar?
In structural set theory terms, the question is the following: the natural numbers are a deeply nested set, but do not contain self-references. On the other hand, thinking of a proximity relation as a membership relation, it is inherently self-referential.
[I just learned a lot of this stuff for the first time--your essay was a great opportunity for this--so I'm still somewhat shaky, but I hope the question makes sense.]
Finally, the contest rules state that "the entry should differ substantially from any previously published piece by the author". Your essay however has substantial overlap with your paper arXiv:quant-ph/0412047, not only in content, but even in language. So where does your essay provide new insights into any aspect of this?
all the best, Tobias
report post as inappropriate
Tobias,
thanks for your questions.
First of all, in hyperset theory, the membership relation can well be symmetric (A is member of B, and B is a member of A), and this fact is being used for the bisimulation with the proximity relation. The proposed bisimulation between both Kripke structures is therefore well defined.
Secondly, you are right that some parts of this essay are available as an arXiv preprint but they have not been published. I have taken the opportunity of the essay contest to rewrite, shorten, carve out and further develop those original ideas. In fact, the main idea about the fundamental physical nature of natural numbers was not presented explicitly in the old preprint text.
I appreciate your interest, thank you.
report post as inappropriate
thanks for your questions.
First of all, in hyperset theory, the membership relation can well be symmetric (A is member of B, and B is a member of A), and this fact is being used for the bisimulation with the proximity relation. The proposed bisimulation between both Kripke structures is therefore well defined.
Secondly, you are right that some parts of this essay are available as an arXiv preprint but they have not been published. I have taken the opportunity of the essay contest to rewrite, shorten, carve out and further develop those original ideas. In fact, the main idea about the fundamental physical nature of natural numbers was not presented explicitly in the old preprint text.
I appreciate your interest, thank you.
report post as inappropriate
wow, that was an instant reply, great!
So do you mean that the hyperset U discussed in your essay does have a symmetric membership relation? How is U defined it all? Is it defined via its membership graph, which in turn is taken to coincide with the proximity relation? Then the bisimulation principle trivially holds by definition of U.
I have started to study your preprint arXiv:quant-ph/0412047 and find myself having trouble parsing some of the statements and extracting their precise meaning. For example on the bottom of page 21, you state that phi, phi' and psi, psi' are elements of Kripke structures, i.e. possible worlds. But then you also use them as arguments of value assignment functions, just like in section 2 where phi stands for a formula of modal logic. So, what is the intended meaning of these symbols, and what does part (a) of the definition of bisimulation (p. 21) actually state? Just trying to understand...
If I get this right, the evolution of the system is governed by transition probabilities to specified basis vectors. In other words, the system is described by a Markov chain? This sounds a lot like a non-contextual non-local hidden variable model.
Finally, what is the physical motivation behind the choice of self-test operator on page 35? IMHO the Euclidean distance matrix, and therefore also the lambda_i and the self-test operator, depend on the chosen embedding of the tree metric into l_1.
report post as inappropriate
So do you mean that the hyperset U discussed in your essay does have a symmetric membership relation? How is U defined it all? Is it defined via its membership graph, which in turn is taken to coincide with the proximity relation? Then the bisimulation principle trivially holds by definition of U.
I have started to study your preprint arXiv:quant-ph/0412047 and find myself having trouble parsing some of the statements and extracting their precise meaning. For example on the bottom of page 21, you state that phi, phi' and psi, psi' are elements of Kripke structures, i.e. possible worlds. But then you also use them as arguments of value assignment functions, just like in section 2 where phi stands for a formula of modal logic. So, what is the intended meaning of these symbols, and what does part (a) of the definition of bisimulation (p. 21) actually state? Just trying to understand...
If I get this right, the evolution of the system is governed by transition probabilities to specified basis vectors. In other words, the system is described by a Markov chain? This sounds a lot like a non-contextual non-local hidden variable model.
Finally, what is the physical motivation behind the choice of self-test operator on page 35? IMHO the Euclidean distance matrix, and therefore also the lambda_i and the self-test operator, depend on the chosen embedding of the tree metric into l_1.
report post as inappropriate
Tobias,
I am glad we can discuss this.
First, what you might call "trivial" is a central result in hyperset theory, i.e. that every graph depicts, up to bisimulation equivalence, a set. Thus, in my work, a central point is to identify the tree graph of structural unfolding with the proximity relation of experimental outcomes in the universal quantum system.
Second, every possible world in a Kripke structure (a graph node) represents a modal sentence. In my preprint you are referring to, as a general rule, \varphi stand for modal sentences in set theory and \psi stand for their bisimilar counterparts in the preferred basis.
Third, with regard to the embedding, every tree metric can be uniquely transformed into an ultrametric, and any ultrametric can be isometrically embedded into l_2. The resulting distance metric (self-test) in l_2 then becomes independent of the emdedding vectors (see, e.g. the work of Deza and Laurent, ref. [10] in preprint). The old preprint you refer to does not explicitly mention this.
I am not sure if I understand your Markov chain remark.
Thanks und viele Gruesse nach Bonn,
Andreas
report post as inappropriate
I am glad we can discuss this.
First, what you might call "trivial" is a central result in hyperset theory, i.e. that every graph depicts, up to bisimulation equivalence, a set. Thus, in my work, a central point is to identify the tree graph of structural unfolding with the proximity relation of experimental outcomes in the universal quantum system.
Second, every possible world in a Kripke structure (a graph node) represents a modal sentence. In my preprint you are referring to, as a general rule, \varphi stand for modal sentences in set theory and \psi stand for their bisimilar counterparts in the preferred basis.
Third, with regard to the embedding, every tree metric can be uniquely transformed into an ultrametric, and any ultrametric can be isometrically embedded into l_2. The resulting distance metric (self-test) in l_2 then becomes independent of the emdedding vectors (see, e.g. the work of Deza and Laurent, ref. [10] in preprint). The old preprint you refer to does not explicitly mention this.
I am not sure if I understand your Markov chain remark.
Thanks und viele Gruesse nach Bonn,
Andreas
report post as inappropriate
danke! I hope you don't mind that I keep questioning your work, being a generally extremely skeptical person towards my own and other people's ideas. Overall, I find the paper pretty hard to read since the distinction between postulates, derived results and their proofs is hard to make out. So far I have not been able to spot anything which resembles a non-trivial proof.
Regarding the first...
view entire post
Regarding the first...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Tobias,
Yes, you are right and I was inaccurate in my language when I called the AFA a result (in the sense of a theorem). What I meant, however, was the observation that every rooted graph depicts a set is a generalization of conventional set theory and thus a "conceptual result" with non-trivial implications. To call it "trivial" is misleading; in the same sense it would be misleading to...
view entire post
Yes, you are right and I was inaccurate in my language when I called the AFA a result (in the sense of a theorem). What I meant, however, was the observation that every rooted graph depicts a set is a generalization of conventional set theory and thus a "conceptual result" with non-trivial implications. To call it "trivial" is misleading; in the same sense it would be misleading to...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
A minor correction: The formula in my previous post should read
D*ij = c + 1/2 (Dij - Dir - Drj)
with c = max(Dij}.
report post as inappropriate
D*ij = c + 1/2 (Dij - Dir - Drj)
with c = max(Dij}.
report post as inappropriate
One more explanation as you said " I don't understand what you mean by the statement that "every possible world [...] represents a modal sentence"."
In structural set theory, every node (possible world) in the graph representing a Kripke structure represents a set and every set is satisfied by a modal sentence (formula) in modal logic , i.e for all sets A there exists a modal sentence \varphi such that A |= \varphi.
report post as inappropriate
In structural set theory, every node (possible world) in the graph representing a Kripke structure represents a set and every set is satisfied by a modal sentence (formula) in modal logic , i.e for all sets A there exists a modal sentence \varphi such that A |= \varphi.
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your extensive explanations, this has cleared up a lot! Now I find myself not being able to resist another reply ;)
First, good, I agree about AFA and that it shouldn't be called "trivial". From your paper I just had the impression that you claimed to have a derivation of this, therefore the misunderstanding, sorry.
Second, I know what a Kripke structure is. And certainly yes, at any node there is a sentence turning true at that node; for example, any tautology will do. This doesn't answer my question, but I can see the direction and will have to do some more reading and think it through.
Third, thank you for the explanation of "transforming". I don't doubt that one can then isometrically embed this into Hilbert space; I just don't see the point of doing it.
Fourth, unitary evolution is deterministic in the sense that if you know the exact state at the present time, you can know with certainty the state at any future time. So if we apply quantum theory to the whole universe as a closed system, it becomes deterministic. If my understanding is correct, this is not the case in your model. Then, in particular, your model should have somewhat different physics than ordinary quantum theory. Are they different observationally? (There is good reason to be suspicious about any theory which assigns a state to the whole universe, but that is a different story.)
Fifth, fine, this is a nice simplification.
It was very interesting to read the referee reports!
report post as inappropriate
First, good, I agree about AFA and that it shouldn't be called "trivial". From your paper I just had the impression that you claimed to have a derivation of this, therefore the misunderstanding, sorry.
Second, I know what a Kripke structure is. And certainly yes, at any node there is a sentence turning true at that node; for example, any tautology will do. This doesn't answer my question, but I can see the direction and will have to do some more reading and think it through.
Third, thank you for the explanation of "transforming". I don't doubt that one can then isometrically embed this into Hilbert space; I just don't see the point of doing it.
Fourth, unitary evolution is deterministic in the sense that if you know the exact state at the present time, you can know with certainty the state at any future time. So if we apply quantum theory to the whole universe as a closed system, it becomes deterministic. If my understanding is correct, this is not the case in your model. Then, in particular, your model should have somewhat different physics than ordinary quantum theory. Are they different observationally? (There is good reason to be suspicious about any theory which assigns a state to the whole universe, but that is a different story.)
Fifth, fine, this is a nice simplification.
It was very interesting to read the referee reports!
report post as inappropriate
Thanks Tobias. One more response. The embedding of the tree metric into the Hilbert space has the purpose of obtaining pointer states, i.e. the elements of the preferred basis, as the eigenvectors of the euclidean distance matrix in the Hilbert space (the self-test).
One point regarding time. The ordinal alpha is the exotime, or stage time, in the sense described in the essay and introduced also by Jaroszkiewicz, Bucchieri, among others. This is not the local (internal) time in quantum theory which appears in the Schroedinger equation. Physical time is therefore two-fold: it has a discrete stage character and it is a local, continuous parameter in unitary dynamics. Both characters of time are radically different, of course. I recommend further reading about "endophysics" which opens this new dimension of physical time.
I think, a the very least, the essay write-up and the discussion here have already motivated me again to write up these ideas in a shorter, concise scientific manuscript. I'll keep you updated on the results, if you wish.
Good luck also with your ideas!
report post as inappropriate
One point regarding time. The ordinal alpha is the exotime, or stage time, in the sense described in the essay and introduced also by Jaroszkiewicz, Bucchieri, among others. This is not the local (internal) time in quantum theory which appears in the Schroedinger equation. Physical time is therefore two-fold: it has a discrete stage character and it is a local, continuous parameter in unitary dynamics. Both characters of time are radically different, of course. I recommend further reading about "endophysics" which opens this new dimension of physical time.
I think, a the very least, the essay write-up and the discussion here have already motivated me again to write up these ideas in a shorter, concise scientific manuscript. I'll keep you updated on the results, if you wish.
Good luck also with your ideas!
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post