I have enjoyed the exchange as well Gnomon. You are an interesting intellect with some rather eccentric notions, imo (no camouflaged insult intended). — universeness

Compared to the repressive & un-camouflaged put-downs of my un-named non-interlocutor on TPF, that is high praise! My posts are not intended to be regurgitations of conventional philosophical or scientific doctrines (approximations of truth). Instead, they are my idiosyncratic interpretations of the leading edge of an emerging new information-centric paradigm. Novelty usually emerges from off-center. :smile:

Enformationism :
This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html


“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.”
― Niels Bohr to Wolfgang Pauli

“One of the favorite maxims of my father was the distinction between the two sorts of truths — profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.”

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”

“Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.”
— Bohr

Good choice of quotes! Long may your quest for new knowledge continue.
All hail true seekers! :flower:

I was sent this entry from Victor Toth (popular physics poster on Quora) by the Quora system.
It was his response to the question:
Do all bosons have particle-wave duality?

I found his answer informative, as it highlights some of the confusions that people have, out in the lay world (me included). I think its related to our exchange here, regarding an analogue/discrete fundamental structure to our universe. Sorry it's physics based (Alkis) but I think it IS informative.

No, neither bosons nor anything “has” wave-particle duality; it is a fancy phrase that is used sometimes by way of a vague explanation of how subatomic particles behave.

Before I explain further though, let me ask a much more mundane question. Does light have “wave-particle” duality? And I don’t mean the quantum field theory of light, just ordinary, classical, 19th century optics.

I mean, we know that light is a wave, right? Yet sometimes, we see pencil sharp rays of light. Lenses focus images with amazing clarity. How can that be a “wave”?

Ask anyone with a decent understanding of wave optics and they’ll give you a sensible answer: yes, there’s a wave front formed by that lens. But those waves arrive, say, at your projection screen (or the retina of your eye) in such a way that most of the waves cancel each other out. One wave arrives with a positive phase, another with a negative phase. The result is zero. Only in select spots will the interference be mostly constructive. And lo and behold, these select spots correspond to the Newtonian (of Fermatian?) view of light as particles following the path of shortest time from the point of emission to the point of absorption.

In other words, under a broad range of circumstances something that is fundamentally wavy can mimic particle-like behavior. We have electromagnetic waves, yet we end up seeing rays of light and can even conceptualize light, in the form of geometric optics, as a stream of tiny particles.

How tiny? Our best theory of matter, the Standard Model of particle physics, is a theory of interacting quantum fields. Just like in the case of wavy classical fields, we can also have wavy quantum fields do constructive and destructive interference and exhibit “geometric” behavior. One crucial difference is that when we work out a quantum field, its energy levels at any given frequency will be quantized, coming in discrete steps. Consequently, when the geometric behavior becomes prominent, we will see a “ray” as a series of particles (individual units of quantized energy at that particular frequency): photons in the case of light, other particles in the case of other fields.

But, I hope, the above description of how wavy light can still produce geometric light rays perhaps helps remove a little bit of the mystery hidden behind fancy phrases like “wave-particle duality”.

Then again, this phrase also has another meaning, albeit closely related. In the quantum theory of particles (that is, ordinary quantum mechanics, not quantum field theory) a particle is still a point-like thing that exists on its own right, not as an excitation of some field. But where it is remains indeterminate to some extent: its location is given in the form of the wavefunction, a probability amplitude that tells us not where the particle is but the probability of finding it at different places. So there is a probability wave vs. a supposedly physical particle.

But I mentioned this last because quantum particle theory is not considered fundamental anymore, more like a limiting case of quantum field theory. Of course there’s still also a wavefunction in quantum field theory, representing the state of the system, but it is not to be confused with the fields themselves that constitute the system… but I digress. Keep that thing about optics in mind. An ordinary ray of light can be seen as either a wave or as a ray of tiny particles depending on how you look at it.

Here is another great answer from a PHD in electrical engineering, that you can read or choose to ignore. I know this is TPF and not Quora so I don't want to piss off too many moderators here, by copying screeds from other sites, so I hope I am not 'pushing it,' by copying and pasting the two Quora posts I have.
I just wanted to source a couple of 'expert' type responses, to our analogue/digital exchange, I know the discussion on this site must favour 'philosophical' musings, but useful input from expertise in an issue under discussion can assist the direction of any philosophical musings on said issue, imo.

FROM: Kip Ingram
PhD in Electrical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin Cockrell School of Engineering (Graduated 1992)Dec 17
All quantum entities are described by wave functions (when you are using standard quantum mechanics). You can associate a wave function with each boson (or with each group of bosons - when you’re dealing with a group you can’t always identify well-defined wave functions for the individual bosons).

You can’t observe a system’s wave function, but there are things you can observer. When you do so, you will get some value for the thing you are observing, and you will send the system into a new quantum state. What quantum state it goes into depends on what you are observing. For example, there is a particular set of possible new wave functions associated with position observation, and there is another particular set associated with momentum observation. Because position and momentum are “conjugate variables,” these to sets do not overlap - their intersection is empty. There is no wave function that corresponds to both a well-defined, exact position and a well-defined, exact momentum. This is the origin of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Wave particle duality is a simple consequence of the fact that some observations (like position observations) will leave the quantum system in a “particle-like state,” while others (like momentum observation) will leave it in a “wave-like state.” There is no mystery here - how the system behaves depends on what state it’s in, and what state it’s in after you do something to it depends on what you do to it. Do something different to it, it may behave differently. This shouldn’t surprise you at all.

What makes all of this “interesting” and unusual to us is the fact that quantum systems can manifest either of these behavioral types, depending on how you interact with them. Classical systems generally have either wave-like or particle-like behavior, and they stick with it throughout all of our observations. It’s the way quantum systems can morph back and forth between the two that makes them exotic to us.

You can think about something similar involving light. Say you have a beam of light come past you. it’s a plane wave - a big one that stretches out beyond you a long way on all sides. The light is purely of one frequency. It’s been going on for a long time, and will continue for a long time. You’re just in this “bath” of purely mono-chromatic light. Ok, you know that beam is made of photons, but what you might not know is that those photons will each carry precisely the same momentum. You are dealing with photons of a very precise, fixed and constant momentum value. But there is no fixed position - there are photons everywhere, all around you.

What if you wanted a bundle of light that had a very tightly defined position? This would be a little pulse that was all bundled up in one spot. You can have that kind of light too, but if you break that pulse down into a frequency spectrum using Fourier analysis, you’ll find that it’s a mixture of photons of many different momenta, and hence many different frequencies. You have a tightly defined position now, but the momenta are all over the map. This is an example of wave particle duality that’s not quite so completely quantum (it really still is, but it’s just a little easier for us to “intuit” about).

I think what I’m trying to say here is that it’s not so much that bosons have wave/particle duality. They do, but that duality is really just a characteristic of our desire to observe conjugate variables. “Particle behavior” goes with tightly defined positions; “wave behavior” goes with tightly defined momentum. You can have either, but you can’t have both.

Stay safe and well!

Kip

Muchas gracias for including me in the list of peeps you wanted to inform. It's above my pay grade and so :zip:

@universeness

Thanks for the posts. I'm confident that they won't persuade those who need to be persuaded out of their error. Lots of pseudo-science and bad physics – 'idealist / antirealist interpretations' of physical theories – plague this site and the purveyors – no need to name names :sparkle: – are incorrigible.

Nae bother man!

:up:

I said to myself, "What the hell, I might improve my Physics afterall!". So I gave it a try.
Well, I believe my Physics were better before that! :grin:

:halo: Fair enough Alkis, I appreciate you taking the time to read what I posted nonetheless.

No problem, universeness. Enjoy yourselves! :party:

But I mentioned this last because quantum particle theory is not considered fundamental anymore, more like a limiting case of quantum field theory. Of course there’s still also a wavefunction in quantum field theory, representing the state of the system, but it is not to be confused with the fields themselves that constitute the system… but I digress. Keep that thing about optics in mind. An ordinary ray of light can be seen as either a wave or as a ray of tiny particles depending on how you look at it. — universeness

The confusion about wave-nature versus particle-nature in quantum physics was partly solved by the Field Theory, which simply kicks-the-can down the road. But the notion of fields-of-Potential-in-empty-space is fundamental to the emerging Information-centric worldview. The Field per se*1 is nothing-but abstract mathematical information : relationships between ideal points in space. But with the Potential to exhibit materialistic particle properties, or holistic wave properties, "depending on how you look at it".

That last remark is what caused the quantum pioneers to conclude that the intentional-mind-of-the-observer is a participant in the observation : "what you see is what you are looking for". or "reality doesn't exist until you measure it". That spooky mind-power is what Einstein objected to*2, although his own Relativity principle also implied that your Reality depends on your local reference Frame. The (future) "state of the system" is statistically Possible/Probable until it has been Actualized by a dynamic disruption, an intentional act, of the stable state of not-yet-real. Metaphorically, the holistic timeless immaterial balloon of statistical possibility is popped, by a pointed act-of-intention, leaving behind a particular piece of space-time matter.

All of this un-reality is what makes Quantum Theory seem weird to realistic thinkers, and Information theory to seem unreal to concrete thinkers. However, quantum scientists eventually came to accept that both individual Particle state and holistic Wave state are inherent in the mathematical statistical foundations of Nature. That's how I came by the "have your cake and eat it too" BothAnd Principle*3 of my thesis. Einstein objected to the implication that quantum "duality" would undermine his Realistic worldview, based on the classical matter-based physics of Newton. Ironically, both Materialism and Idealism are real & true, depending on how you frame your questions. :smile: :cool:


*1. In quantum theory, "the fields themselves" are like Kant's "ding an sich" : unreal, except to the mind's eye, from an ideal perspective.

*2. Einstein saw Quantum Theory as a means to describe Nature on an atomic level, but he doubted that it upheld "a useful basis for the whole of physics."
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/legacy/quantum-theory

*3. Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0. ( see Fuzzy Logic )
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Have a look at: Growth in energy demand, eg:
For a long time, growth in the world and the U. S. energy consumption as a function of time, follow what is known as an exponential function. Now it looks like we have switched to linear growth — universeness

And yet the total available renewable energy is fixed. Do you see what I’m trying to illustrate? A line that is going up has to eventually cross a horizontal one.
Your quote from your liked site:

Where Greek letter Δ(delta) is the change or increment of the variable and λ (lambda) is the growth rate. After some mathematical methods, it can be shown that the equation changes to the form:

N=N₀e^λt

That claims exponential growth, not linear.

We might grow excess food in space and transfer it to Earth

The question had been about other star systems, not stuff in local orbit. But I cannot find it economical to even do it in orbit. The energy needed to supply food to Earth from orbit seems vastly larger than the gain from the food. Sure, electricity is cheap up there, but electricity doesn’t get stuff in and out of orbit. Better to just export the electricity, except for the nasty side effect of having a giant WMD in orbit at the disposal of a species known for individuals that tend to take advantage of such capabilities.

we may tap fuel sources such as extraterrestial hydrogen etc.

Given all the hydrogen we have here, this seems kind of low priority. Also, where are you going to mine it? Jupiter has plenty, but it takes an obscene amount of resources to pull anything out of that gravity well, and then a whole lot more to transport it to Earth. There’s actually not a lot of readily available hydrogen except perhaps through the mining of comets and stuff.
My point is, for the most part, interplanetary and especially interstellar trade isn’t worth the effort for most trade goods.

Seems like you have already set your own preconditions for our imaginary trip, ship and crew!

I kind of have, yes. One that works, albeit currently beyond our capabilities. That should change soon. But it takes a stupid long time to do it, so one of the most important features would be reliability and repairability. Things will go wrong and it can’t be a fatal problem.

Returns? Can’t it just phone home?
— noAxioms
I'm sure it will but it can't phone home any samples it collected.

Yes it can, just like the Mars rovers phone back about the samples. The only reason they’d like samples back home is because there is a limited lab there on Mars, but an interstellar probe wouldn’t have that problem if complex lab analysis is a requirement.

I assume you are against the concept of 'brain wiping' anyone and if you are witnessing 'brain wiping,' everyday, then I hope you are speaking out against it, in the same way you would speak out against any mental or physical crime you were witnessing daily. — universeness

I’m not talking about rendering a person a total vegetable. I mean the indoctrination of the masses with lies designed to alter the behavior of the population in favor of whatever goals the administer desires. This goes on every day. I’m only against the lies that benefit special interest groups instead of the whole. There are good lies and bad lies, even critical lies. I believe certain things that I rationally know for a fact are false. Sounds contradictory, but its how it works.

That's why I suggested you sound a bit mad sometimes in your turn of phrase. I assume you are not a fan of the current school curriculum content where you live or/and you don't approve of how some parents choose to inform or educate their children.

The schools here are actually pretty good, albeit a bit on the dangerous side. I suppose that what I disapprove of is what lies parents are allowed to choose their children to be taught in publicly funded schools. My childhood school was not publicly funded, and the schools like that around here collapsed about 6 years ago, but are still going strong where I grew up, which happens to be ground-zero for Trump’s chosen secretary of education whose family actually funded construction of my high-school. Good school too, regularly placing tops in academic ratings.

I have also witnessed what I would consider a biased or imbalanced approach to informing the young but I think 'brain wiping' is too emotive and more in-line with dystopian visions such as Orwell's 1984.

I agree that ‘wiping’ is too strong. Washing I think is the more usual term. All propaganda is a form of brain washing, designed to instill the masses with something other than the truth. My mother still suffers from some of the propaganda to which she was exposed as a child growing up in a Nazi occupied country.

Would you allow people to end their life, if continuation means daily suffering with no or very little chance of improvement?

Oh yes. ‘Do no harm’ is a joke when the ending torture is considered ‘harm’. But keeping bright and comfortable person sedated deprives them of years of quality life.

What would you have done differently for your grandparent, when you consider her medical status at the time?

Screw the sedation at least. If there was unacceptable suffering going on, then yes, she should be allowed the choice. I wasn’t aware of any, and she was actually quite fine about a month before when they reduced the sedation long enough for my mother’s visit. I wasn’t there at the time.

The basic means of survival will be free, that's the recognition.

So those recognized get the same thing as those that don’t. That isn’t recognition. You did great! You get to live. You over there, you don’t do anything! You also get to live. Yay system.

Yes, you would still be a contributor, as long as you wanted to try.

Somebody has to do the unpleasant jobs. You make it sound like everybody pursues their hobbies and nothing actually gets done.

Anyone can publish (we are kind of there now, with some free publishing sites).

We are there. Anyone can blog for instance. Lots (most) of it dies in obscurity, hardly considered a vocation from the viewpoint of the system.

The fact it is required to successfully send and receive the data packet is irrelevant to the fact that such data is redundant, in the same way the stamp and envelope and paper that a hand written snail mail letter uses, is redundant. — universeness

You have a very funny definition of ‘redundant’ then. I’ve never seen the term used that way, nor have I ever seen metadata referred to as redundant, and I’m in that biz.

It's only the textual/imagery content of a snail mail letter that is not redundant.

Actually, it’s often only that content that contains redundancy, usually in the form of ECC bits and such, unnecessary if the packet arrives unaltered at its destination.

I know, but a data packet is a more often than not, a message fragment. Many fragments make up the 'message' or the picture or the movie or audio clip. The internet is a packet switching network.

No disagreement here.

A quark could therefore be quantised into a series of lower level data fundamentals and be 'processed' into any of the 'quark' variants (up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom).

This makes it sound like quarks are not fundamental. There’s different kinds, but they’re not made of ‘parts’ like say a proton is.

So, yes, if YOU as the programmer instructed 'make up-quark,' using some high level or low level programming code, then a program would be executed, which used stored data to create an up-quark.
Perhaps one day we will have the tech to create a REAL up-quark instead of a simulated or emulated one, displayed on some output media.

Ah, you seem to be talking about some kind of simulation. Most simulations don’t find the need to put every simulated bit on any kind of output media. Mostly they need to know how it behaves, say if a simulated chip performs according to specifications. If it works, great. If it fails, they probably want to dig down to what part didn’t do what was expected, something perhaps not saved on the first pass.

Anyway, I think it remans very difficult to prove that at a fundamental level, the universe is quantum — universeness

That part is actually pretty clear. Even without a theory of quantum gravity, the alternative (a classical universe) has long since been falsified. It’s quantum, we just don’t have the unified theory yet.

No graviton has ever been found yet, but perhaps gravity is not a force and therefore has no delivery/messenger particle.

Just FYI then: Gravity is not a force under relativity, and relativity isn’t a quantum theory (yet). Gravity doesn’t travel. Gravitons are the delivery/messanger particle of gravitational waves (that which LIGO detects), and not of gravity (that which your bathroom scale arguably detects). Gravitational waves transmit changes to the gravitational field (the geometry of spacetime). Gravitational waves are energy, lost pretty much permanently every time masses rearrange themselves. For instance, Earth’s orbit about the sun radiates gravitational waves at the rate of about 200 watts, which, barring everything else, will eventually spin all the planets into the sun after some obscene amount of time. Earth’s orbital distance is currently changing for 4 different reasons, and that one has the least effect, but will also continue longer than the others.

I differ with you on two of your main projections.
1. No first cause is necessary.
2. No mind with intent is necessary in the creation of the universe.

And yet the total available renewable energy is fixed. — noAxioms

No it's not, as we can create extraterrestial renewable energy, such as solar power generation stations, built in space. Also renewables can be augmented, by perhaps, new future tech, such as cold fusion. So your worry that demand may utterly outstrip supply in the future remains a concern for now, not a fact.

Do you see what I’m trying to illustrate? A line that is going up has to eventually cross a horizontal one. — noAxioms

Yes, might never happen, it's not a fact that it will, for many reasons such as the ones I have suggested above.

The question had been about other star systems, not stuff in local orbit. But I cannot find it economical to even do it in orbit. — noAxioms

I have suggested making use of the resources available in other planets, moons, and debris belts in THIS solar system, not other star systems. The E-ring around Saturn, produced by the moon Enceladus, for example, may be a source of water, that could be used for further space exploration and development.

The energy needed to supply food to Earth from orbit seems vastly larger than the gain from the food — noAxioms

Future tech such as spacelifts, might be very efficient.

My point is, for the most part, interplanetary and especially interstellar trade isn’t worth the effort for most trade goods. — noAxioms

Your musings are in quicksand as you insist on wearing a 'current tech' hat, instead of musing on what future tech may allow us to achieve.

but an interstellar probe wouldn’t have that problem if complex lab analysis is a requirement. — noAxioms

Maybe, maybe not. It's not a vital point, as long as the necessary info is returned to those who need it, on Earth or otherwise.

I mean the indoctrination of the masses with lies designed to alter the behavior of the population in favor of whatever goals the administer desires. — noAxioms

Yeah, manipulating people, trying to fool all of the people all of the time! So, not brain wiping but indoctrination.

I’m only against the lies that benefit special interest groups instead of the whole. — noAxioms

:grin: Yeah, I have been typing about my secular humanist stance for quite a while now.

There are good lies and bad lies, even critical lies. I believe certain things that I rationally know for a fact are false. Sounds contradictory, but its how it works. — noAxioms

That's just confused thinking imo.

Trump’s chosen secretary of education whose family actually funded construction of my high-school. Good school too, regularly placing tops in academic ratings. — noAxioms

I am against all private school education, as they are full of indoctrination, bias and they are discriminatory. A good education, only if you can afford one, is a vile concept.
I am also against all religious schools.

Would you allow people to end their life, if continuation means daily suffering with no or very little chance of improvement?
Oh yes. ‘Do no harm’ is a joke when the ending torture is considered ‘harm’. But keeping bright and comfortable person sedated deprives them of years of quality life.
What would you have done differently for your grandparent, when you consider her medical status at the time?
Screw the sedation at least. If there was unacceptable suffering going on, then yes, she should be allowed the choice. I wasn’t aware of any, and she was actually quite fine about a month before when they reduced the sedation long enough for my mother’s visit. I wasn’t there at the time. — noAxioms

In all honesty, it seems to me that your judgement of those who administered palliative care for your grandparent, may be very harsh, but I suppose, such judgements are within your prerogative.

You did great! You get to live. You over there, you don’t do anything! You also get to live. Yay system. — noAxioms

You prefer a system based on 'you don't do anything, that I or even WE, subjectively, decide has not met OUR standards,' so you will be left to rot and starve or freeze to death?

Somebody has to do the unpleasant jobs. You make it sound like everybody pursues their hobbies and nothing actually gets done. — noAxioms

Such jobs will be automated or done by those who don't find them unpleasant or will be done by everyone on a shared basis. Everything that needs done, will get done, and your job can also be your hobby. I think if a person was given everything they need for free, then they would be very willing to share, in helping to do some of the more unpleasant, but necessary jobs, that cannot yet be automated, for let's say, 1 day a week.

Anyone can publish (we are kind of there now, with some free publishing sites).
We are there. Anyone can blog for instance. Lots (most) of it dies in obscurity, hardly considered a vocation from the viewpoint of the system. — noAxioms

Who knows what the future holds for a particular item of work memorialised by someone. Most of the most revered works available today were created by people who got very little or no recognition during their lifetime and died in poverty.

You have a very funny definition of ‘redundant’ then. I’ve never seen the term used that way, nor have I ever seen metadata referred to as redundant, and I’m in that biz. — noAxioms

I taught computing science for 30+ years. Data redundancy is wide ranging. Duplicated data in database systems, too many copies of data, out-of-date data.
In data packets, error detection and correction data has always been called redundant data.
From wiki:
Data redundancy
In computer main memory, auxiliary storage and computer buses, data redundancy is the existence of data that is additional to the actual data and permits correction of errors in stored or transmitted data.
The payload in a data packet is the highest priority, just like the contents of a snail mail parcel is the most important part of the parcel. I fail to understand why you have a problem (as an IT specialist) in accepting the term redundant data for any data in a transmittable data packet, which is not part of the payload. It is redundant because it is disposable. The fact that something is ultimately redundant, does not mean it cannot be used for a function before confirming its redundancy fate. The term 'disposable' is a similar concept.

This makes it sound like quarks are not fundamental. There’s different kinds, but they’re not made of ‘parts’ like say a proton is. — noAxioms

Quarks would not be fundamental, if the smallest bit of the information which 'defines' a Quark or a photon, is THEE fundamental of the structure of the universe.

Perhaps one day we will have the tech to create a REAL up-quark instead of a simulated or emulated one, displayed on some output media.
Ah, you seem to be talking about some kind of simulation. Most simulations don’t find the need to put every simulated bit on any kind of output media. Mostly they need to know how it behaves, say if a simulated chip performs according to specifications. If it works, great. If it fails, they probably want to dig down to what part didn’t do what was expected, something perhaps not saved on the first pass. — noAxioms

No, not a simulation or emulation. I used the word REAL. So, to convince me that information is THEE universal fundamental, I would need to witness a REAL machine like the food replicators on Star Trek, producing REAL food, from information only, not naturally produced seeds or animal flesh/produce!

That part is actually pretty clear. Even without a theory of quantum gravity, the alternative (a classical universe) has long since been falsified. It’s quantum, we just don’t have the unified theory yet. — noAxioms

Yeah, so you have got past the a wave is made of quanta, which are waves, made of quanta, which are waves .........?

Gravity doesn’t travel. — noAxioms

Gravitons are the delivery/messanger particle of gravitational waves (that which LIGO detects), and not of gravity (that which your bathroom scale arguably detects). — noAxioms

Gravitational waves transmit changes to the gravitational field (the geometry of spacetime). Gravitational waves are energy, lost pretty much permanently every time masses rearrange themselves. For instance, Earth’s orbit about the sun radiates gravitational waves at the rate of about 200 watts, which, barring everything else, will eventually spin all the planets into the sun after some obscene amount of time. Earth’s orbital distance is currently changing for 4 different reasons, and that one has the least effect, but will also continue longer than the others. — noAxioms

So gravitational waves quantise to gravitons but gravity does not consist of gravitons, gravity is not a force under relativity. So, are you saying gravity IS a force in a non-relativistic frame and if it is, are you suggesting that in a non-relativistic frame, gravity is quantisable or not?

I found his answer informative, as it highlights some of the confusions that people have, out in the lay world (me included). I think its related to our exchange here, regarding an analogue/discrete fundamental structure to our universe. — universeness

I just wanted to source a couple of 'expert' type responses, to our analogue/digital exchange, I know the discussion on this site must favour 'philosophical' musings, but useful input from expertise in an issue under discussion can assist the direction of any philosophical musings on said issue, imo. — universeness

The discrete vs continuous confusion seems to derive from two ways of interrogating Reality. Natural processes are continuous & analog, while human analysis (mathematics) is discontinuous & digital. We perceive the movie, but we conceive the individual frames. Besides, holistic Philosophical "musings" are mostly concerned with general systems, while reductive Scientific analysis is focused on parts & details.

Apparently, even the "experts" are confused about how best to "frame" reality. Google "physics analog or discrete", or "physics analog vs digital", and you will get a long list of arguments & interpretations pro & con. That either/or question seems to be a long-running debate on Quora. So, I doubt that the philosophical implications (Holism vs Reductionism) will be finally settled anytime soon.

But, that's not a problem for my BothAnd worldview. In any case, "philosophical musings" and "scientific expertise" are different ways of looking at one Reality. Philosophical musings (analogue) are about mental meanings, while Scientific analysis (reductive) is about physical results. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics is interrogating Nature on a fundamental level, on the borderline between analog wholes and digital distinctions. Thus, as usual, the confusion arises from failure to define our frames of reference : Science or Philosophy ; little pieces or big picture. :smile:


"Simply put, “analog” and “digital” refer to two different methods of encoding information on to a signal"
__Bob Myers, Quora

"Both are the two parts of ONE process".
__Prasad Kulkarni, Quora

What all these “things” have in common is that they deal with signals from the real world: analog to digital. The real world is analog — fundamentally nature is not digital — and that’s where our story begins.
https://engineering.utdallas.edu/news/archive/2018-summer/the-real-world-is-analog/

↪Gnomon
I differ with you on two of your main projections.
1. No first cause is necessary.
2. No mind with intent is necessary in the creation of the universe. — universeness

:100: :up:

@Agent Smith

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? Is an tech singularity emergent? and (I know this is very difficult to contemplate but) what do you think will happen as a result of such a 'singularity?' — universeness

Back to the OP topic regarding the probability of evolutionary emergence of a Technological Singularity. In astro-biologist Caleb Scharf's, The Ascent of Information, he eventually gets around to speculation on the future development of his technological analogy to the biological genome. He calls it the Dataome*1, and instead being made of amino acids, it consists of core algorithms ("corgs"). Although it requires physical machines as hosts, the world-wide Dataome is essentially made of mathematical information.

Like their biological predecessors, the "corgs" evolve, and new properties emerge from the same interactive mutating & weeding (heuristic) processes of the cosmic evolutionary algorithm. He muses philosophically : "For the dataome, humans generate the one thing that we have yet to see machines or artificial algorithms produce : original information, real innovation, and open-ended novelty." Yet, he goes on to explore the possibility of something really new. "When we speculate about human transcendence, or technological singularities, or post-human futures, we're missing what's right in front of us". [my bold] Then, he addresses a side-issue : "In science we often struggle with the notion that there is something special about humans, something unique." Our superior information-processing powers (reasoning) perhaps?

In the final chapter, he discusses the roles of Energy, Entropy & Information in bringing about the next stage of Evolution. And he has the temerity to take physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" conjecture seriously. "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom . . . . an immaterial source and explanation . . ." [my bold] Ironically, he never uses the sci-fi term "Cyborg" (cybernetic organism), but that seems to fit his general direction*2. However, he does liken this evolutionary process to "an informational experiment". Which raises the question -- that as a scientist he is not allowed to ask -- "who is the Experimenter?" My own non-expert thesis does address such logical implications : Who asked the incalculable question*3 about "life, the universe and everything"? To whom does it matter how the cosmic experiment turns out? Who wants to know? :smile: :cool: :nerd:


*1. The Selfish Dataome :
Does the data we produce serve us, or vice versa?
https://nautil.us/the-selfish-dataome-237229/

*2. Do you find the Cyborg notion credible? It combines evolving biology with emergent technology, while, unlike the Borg, presumably retaining top-down control for each cyborganism.

*3. The cosmic question is open-ended. Hence it can only be answered by running the experiment in real-time & real-space. So here we cybernetic organic humans find ourselves as lab-rats with philosophical questions of our own.

Gnomon
I differ with you on two of your main projections.
1. No first cause is necessary.
2. No mind with intent is necessary in the creation of the universe.
— universeness
:100: :up:

@Agent Smith — 180 Proof

That's the catch. Religious apologists, at the end of the day, have to posit a causeless primum movens aka God.

Yeah but not the "god of religion" ...

Yeah but not the "god of religion" ... — 180 Proof

:chin:

Natural processes are continuous & analog, while human analysis (mathematics) is discontinuous & digital. — Gnomon

In what way are natural processes such as sand production, falling rain, falling snow, seed production etc, etc, analogue?

Besides, holistic Philosophical "musings" are mostly concerned with general systems, while reductive Scientific analysis is focused on parts & details. — Gnomon

I broadly agree but I am more interested in what IS, rather than holistic philosophical musings (as useful as such, can be).

Apparently, even the "experts" are confused about how best to "frame" reality. — Gnomon

I agree, and I admire the fact that they remain uninterested in trying to fill any gaps with pure conjecture.

That either/or question seems to be a long-running debate on Quora. So, I doubt that the philosophical implications (Holism vs Reductionism) will be finally settled anytime soon. — Gnomon

I agree. That's why no-one should say, I KNOW that the structure of the universe is fundamentally digital, or I KNOW the structure of the universe is fundamentally analogue, because, no one KNOWS for sure, yet. So, a statement such as:

The real world is analog — fundamentally nature is not digital — and that’s where our story begins. — Gnomon

is 'silly.'
If you read through the source you provided, you will see that you cite a privately owned organisation, and they make statements like:
“TI reached a decision before TxACE was formed that the best market opportunities for us would be in analog. And in embedded processing, which together enable ubiquitous systems supporting the entire analog-to-digital-to-analog signal-chain.”
I assign very little credence to privately owned concerns, driven by 'market opportunities,' instead of factual science.

But, that's not a problem for my BothAnd worldview. In any case, "philosophical musings" and "scientific expertise" are different ways of looking at one Reality. Philosophical musings (analogue) are about mental meanings, while Scientific analysis (reductive) is about physical results. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics is interrogating Nature on a fundamental level, on the borderline between analog wholes and digital distinctions. Thus, as usual, the confusion arises from failure to define our frames of reference : Science or Philosophy ; little pieces or big picture — Gnomon

But for me, the problem is, that you try to assign the SAME credence levels, to your philosophical musing, as you do to scientific proposals. In fact, on occasion, you even seem to assign a higher credence to your philosophical musings, than you do to current scientific theory.
I have strong objections to that approach.

Back to the OP topic regarding the probability of evolutionary emergence of a Technological Singularity. — Gnomon

Well ,let's be careful in the terms we employ here. I am not suggesting a NATURAL evolutionary emergence of a tech singularity (or significantly pivotal breakthrough moment in AI). I am suggesting the future creation of an ASI system via HUMAN intent or even HUMAN intelligent design.

In astro-biologist Caleb Scharf's, The Ascent of Information — Gnomon

Mr Sharf has obviously used Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, as the inspiration for his book title.
Mr Sharf has decide to present his notion of the 'Dataome' as something which could have it's own sense of being. In an interview with Columbia News, he states:
"In fact, I propose that the dataome is an alternate living system, in a deeply symbiotic relationship with us. That may sound outrageous, but it seems to fit with many ideas about the nature of information as a thing—akin to energy or entropy—and what we think life is. In a sense, life is what happens to matter when information takes control."

I agree that he is being a bit outrageous. He seems to be enjoying his work and he seems to support the viewpoint (unlike you) that the structure of the universe is fundamentally data based.
At no point in his work does he support deism or suggest a mind with intent, as the first cause of our universe, in the ways that you do. He admits to employing various techniques to attract as many people as possible to his viewpoints. In defense of metaphors in science writing: Caleb Sharf writes,
"I've also had critics say that they wish I'd just 'stick to the numbers' in describing things like the mass of black holes or the collections of hundreds of billions of stars that constitute galaxies. No talk of buzzing swarms of bees, or vast dandelion heads, or swirling stellar pizzas. According to these readers there is no need, or desire, to try to bring such cosmic structures 'down to earth'. It's a fair point, sometimes you want to feel that such things are untouchable, unknowable. But the simple truth is that scientists themselves constantly make use of analogies, metaphorical devices, and similes. Sometimes it's the only way to build an intuition for a problem, by relating it to something else - Richard Feynman was perhaps one of the greatest players of this game, turning spinning plates into cutting-edge quantum physics and Nobel prizes."

I think you have taken Mr Sharfs metaphor of his dataome as a self-aware entity, too seriously.

Which raises the question -- that as a scientist he is not allowed to ask -- "who is the Experimenter?" — Gnomon

Any scientist is completely free to as such questions. Many scientists (too many imo.) remain theists.

Do you find the Cyborg notion credible? It combines evolving biology with emergent technology, while, unlike the Borg, presumably retaining top-down control for each cyborganism. — Gnomon

Yes but I think there will be a big difference between a HUMAN cyborg or augmented human and an AGI with biological components. Biological computing is still very much in it's infancy. Any transhuman must be still a free independent with full 'human' rights to autonomy.

The cosmic question is open-ended. Hence it can only be answered by running the experiment in real-time & real-space. — Gnomon

Seems a reasonable way to describe the status quo.

So here we cybernetic organic humans find ourselves as lab-rats with philosophical questions of our own. — Gnomon

No, we are only lab rats, if god exists. We have scientific questions as well as philosophical ones.

Yeah but not the "god of religion" ...
— 180 Proof — Agent Smith

Yep, the only use of the god label for me (and it remains a very weak tether), is as a 'notion' of omniscience, to asymptotically aspire to. I assume we DO NOT want to aspire to the vast majority of the morality standards set out in any religious scripture.