- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: andy gh <andyeverythinglist.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:09:19 -0400

"Every creation" hypotheses, instead of every computation

or every mathematical structure.

I favor a variant of the everything idea, which I would like

to call the "every creation" approach. In some sense it

creates every "computational moment". Computations are

not required as fundamental entities. Almost all you need is

a natural definition to make new creations from pairs of

creations. This determines the evolution of an avalanche of

creations. Creations inside the avalanche may be aware only

of those creations to which they are in relative equilibrium.

As with other approaches, a consequence seems to be the

emergence of the laws of Physics.

Let me start with the following 4 hypotheses:

1. There is an underlying time.

2. There are creations (creation objects).

3. There is a natural creation operation defined, which

creates new creations from existing creations.

4. Every natural creation operation happens.

Some more words on these hypotheses:

(1) There is an underlying time, which is discrete. This

makes it easy to talk about creation operations, as if they

happened in our time. I will do this.

(2a) New creations can be made (created).

(2b) Creations do not get deleted.

(2c) Creations can be made in multiple copies. Creations

have multiplicities. Whether a creation can be made does

not depend on (can not be prevented by) the preexistence

of an identical creation.

(3) For any two creations x and y, there is a natural

creation operation [x,y] defined, which makes a creation z.

Lets call x the operator, and y the operand. I do not specify

the definition of the natural creation operation here. I have

given one of my favorite definitions, using replacement

operators, in a previous posting, where [(x1 x2),y] creates

a copy of y and replaces every occurrence of x1 by x2.

(4a) Every-creation hypotheses. The natural creation

operation [x,y] is happening for every existing creation x

and for every existing creation y.

(4b) Every existing creation x has equal chance to become

the operator in [x,y].

(4c) Every existing creation y has equal chance to become

the operand in [x,y].

Let's also make the assumption that creations are (directly)

responsible for our awareness and our perceptions of the

world. What are the consequences of such a hypotheses?

Creations may perceive other creations only indirectly and

only if the later possibly play a role in the creations'

histories. We may not perceive properties which depend

on the underlying time Tau. But we may be able to perceive

invariant properties, which do not change when the

underlying time Tau is getting larger and larger. We can be

indirectly aware of creations who's multiplicities are on

average in relative equilibrium with the multiplicities of the

creations which are directly responsible for our

awareness.

Thus the observable universe consists, possibly only, of

creations who's multiplicities grow on average at the same

rate.

Multiplicity(creation,Tau) = phi(creation) * growth_factor(Tau)

Multiplicity (observer,Tau) = phi(observer) * growth_factor(Tau)

The relative multiplicity,

Multiplicity (creation,Tau) /Multiplicity (observer,Tau) =

= phi(creation) / phi(observer),

is independent of Tau.

For creations inside the avalanche, the importance of

the initial conditions depends on the number of possible

equilibrium states (or the number of certain equivalence

classes of possible equilibrium states.) If there is only one

possible equilibrium state, then the initial conditions are

not relevant at all.

Let's assume that Tau is large enough, so that the

equilibrium is reached for the creations under

consideration. The growth factor can be calculated when

we make the simplifying approximation that every operation

[x,y] just creates one new copy of y. In that case trivially all

creations are in equilibrium, as required. If one of the

operations [x,y] does not create a new copy of y, but

instead another creation z, the equilibrium is broken. There

is one creation y missing and one creation z too much. This

is as if the creation y had been moved from y to z. The

effective movement can be compensated by an effective

movement back. There could be another operation [x2,z]

which creates a creation y. Adding loops of effective

movements does not change the equilibrium.

May a set X of creations x_i form a pattern, and the

operations among these creations may produce another

pattern Y of creations y_i. Lets call this an effective particle

P moving from X to Y. The broken equilibrium can be

restored by an effective particle moving from Y to X. Let

me call this the effective antiparticle P_bar moving into the

opposite direction as particle P is moving.

The choice of naming is intended to remind you of the

Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation of E<0 Solutions of

equations like Dirac or Klein-Gordon Equation:

Negative-energy particle solutions going backward in time

*describe*,

positive-energy antiparticle solutions going forward in time.

In short, this interpretation claims that

P(-E) *describes* P_bar(E).

But the equilibrium argument claims that

the existence of P *requires the existence* of P_bar,

P_bar also moving into the opposite direction.

This suggest a new(?) interpretation of the equations

where the two possible solutions are not only two ways of

describing reality. They correspond to two parts of reality.

They are based on two processes, which require each

other in order to keep the equilibrium. For every particle

with energy E there is an antiparticle with energy -E, and

the total energy is E = 0.

In a Feynman graph, there are lines that, according to

Feynman, do correspond to a particle, *or* do correspond to

an antiparticle moving into the opposite direction. However,

according to the equilibrium argument, the line should be

interpreted as a loop(s) composed of a particle, moving in

one direction, *and* an antiparticle, moving backwards in

time, back to the original space-time point.

Feynman, with his lines, draws kind of one-dimensional

projections of such loops. The additional dimension, which

is not visible in his graphs, corresponds to transformations

between spaces, which you may call "invention space" and

"feedback space", or covariant and contravariant space.

This additional degree of freedom may be what is needed

to explain the additional imaginary component of quantum

mechanical amplitudes -- to explain them from multiplicities,

which are given as natural numbers.

Covariant and Contravariant Spaces are not two

descriptions of one reality which can be transformed into

each other. They are rather two parts of reality which

require each other in order to keep the equilibrium growth

intact.

Does the Hilbert space corresponds to that part of the

creation space which is already in equilibrium?

The following ideas may rely on the definition of the natural

creation operation.

Einstein's field equation might be understood as equations

stating that effects of all loops going through one creation,

such as all gravitation loops and all loops from energetic

pattern movements, cancel each other and have no effect

on that particular creation, except for its equilibrium growth.

What is gravitation? Creations lead to new creations by

the continuing inflation, plus continuing shrinking, plus

rotations, and other transformations of space-time, at any

space-time point in the remembered history of those

creations. This gives a kind of diffusion effect, which could

be responsible for gravitation. Do today's gravitation fields

evolve according to the dynamics of "the past", in particular

the dynamics of the Big Bang?

By the way, at the moment I favor space-time generator

"definitions" which result in non-projectable dimensions.

(Projections can not be done easily with few operations.)

The projections to the border which I have mentioned in a

previous posting may correspond to other degrees of

freedom though.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Tue May 08 2007 - 12:08:09 PDT

Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:09:19 -0400

"Every creation" hypotheses, instead of every computation

or every mathematical structure.

I favor a variant of the everything idea, which I would like

to call the "every creation" approach. In some sense it

creates every "computational moment". Computations are

not required as fundamental entities. Almost all you need is

a natural definition to make new creations from pairs of

creations. This determines the evolution of an avalanche of

creations. Creations inside the avalanche may be aware only

of those creations to which they are in relative equilibrium.

As with other approaches, a consequence seems to be the

emergence of the laws of Physics.

Let me start with the following 4 hypotheses:

1. There is an underlying time.

2. There are creations (creation objects).

3. There is a natural creation operation defined, which

creates new creations from existing creations.

4. Every natural creation operation happens.

Some more words on these hypotheses:

(1) There is an underlying time, which is discrete. This

makes it easy to talk about creation operations, as if they

happened in our time. I will do this.

(2a) New creations can be made (created).

(2b) Creations do not get deleted.

(2c) Creations can be made in multiple copies. Creations

have multiplicities. Whether a creation can be made does

not depend on (can not be prevented by) the preexistence

of an identical creation.

(3) For any two creations x and y, there is a natural

creation operation [x,y] defined, which makes a creation z.

Lets call x the operator, and y the operand. I do not specify

the definition of the natural creation operation here. I have

given one of my favorite definitions, using replacement

operators, in a previous posting, where [(x1 x2),y] creates

a copy of y and replaces every occurrence of x1 by x2.

(4a) Every-creation hypotheses. The natural creation

operation [x,y] is happening for every existing creation x

and for every existing creation y.

(4b) Every existing creation x has equal chance to become

the operator in [x,y].

(4c) Every existing creation y has equal chance to become

the operand in [x,y].

Let's also make the assumption that creations are (directly)

responsible for our awareness and our perceptions of the

world. What are the consequences of such a hypotheses?

Creations may perceive other creations only indirectly and

only if the later possibly play a role in the creations'

histories. We may not perceive properties which depend

on the underlying time Tau. But we may be able to perceive

invariant properties, which do not change when the

underlying time Tau is getting larger and larger. We can be

indirectly aware of creations who's multiplicities are on

average in relative equilibrium with the multiplicities of the

creations which are directly responsible for our

awareness.

Thus the observable universe consists, possibly only, of

creations who's multiplicities grow on average at the same

rate.

Multiplicity(creation,Tau) = phi(creation) * growth_factor(Tau)

Multiplicity (observer,Tau) = phi(observer) * growth_factor(Tau)

The relative multiplicity,

Multiplicity (creation,Tau) /Multiplicity (observer,Tau) =

= phi(creation) / phi(observer),

is independent of Tau.

For creations inside the avalanche, the importance of

the initial conditions depends on the number of possible

equilibrium states (or the number of certain equivalence

classes of possible equilibrium states.) If there is only one

possible equilibrium state, then the initial conditions are

not relevant at all.

Let's assume that Tau is large enough, so that the

equilibrium is reached for the creations under

consideration. The growth factor can be calculated when

we make the simplifying approximation that every operation

[x,y] just creates one new copy of y. In that case trivially all

creations are in equilibrium, as required. If one of the

operations [x,y] does not create a new copy of y, but

instead another creation z, the equilibrium is broken. There

is one creation y missing and one creation z too much. This

is as if the creation y had been moved from y to z. The

effective movement can be compensated by an effective

movement back. There could be another operation [x2,z]

which creates a creation y. Adding loops of effective

movements does not change the equilibrium.

May a set X of creations x_i form a pattern, and the

operations among these creations may produce another

pattern Y of creations y_i. Lets call this an effective particle

P moving from X to Y. The broken equilibrium can be

restored by an effective particle moving from Y to X. Let

me call this the effective antiparticle P_bar moving into the

opposite direction as particle P is moving.

The choice of naming is intended to remind you of the

Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation of E<0 Solutions of

equations like Dirac or Klein-Gordon Equation:

Negative-energy particle solutions going backward in time

*describe*,

positive-energy antiparticle solutions going forward in time.

In short, this interpretation claims that

P(-E) *describes* P_bar(E).

But the equilibrium argument claims that

the existence of P *requires the existence* of P_bar,

P_bar also moving into the opposite direction.

This suggest a new(?) interpretation of the equations

where the two possible solutions are not only two ways of

describing reality. They correspond to two parts of reality.

They are based on two processes, which require each

other in order to keep the equilibrium. For every particle

with energy E there is an antiparticle with energy -E, and

the total energy is E = 0.

In a Feynman graph, there are lines that, according to

Feynman, do correspond to a particle, *or* do correspond to

an antiparticle moving into the opposite direction. However,

according to the equilibrium argument, the line should be

interpreted as a loop(s) composed of a particle, moving in

one direction, *and* an antiparticle, moving backwards in

time, back to the original space-time point.

Feynman, with his lines, draws kind of one-dimensional

projections of such loops. The additional dimension, which

is not visible in his graphs, corresponds to transformations

between spaces, which you may call "invention space" and

"feedback space", or covariant and contravariant space.

This additional degree of freedom may be what is needed

to explain the additional imaginary component of quantum

mechanical amplitudes -- to explain them from multiplicities,

which are given as natural numbers.

Covariant and Contravariant Spaces are not two

descriptions of one reality which can be transformed into

each other. They are rather two parts of reality which

require each other in order to keep the equilibrium growth

intact.

Does the Hilbert space corresponds to that part of the

creation space which is already in equilibrium?

The following ideas may rely on the definition of the natural

creation operation.

Einstein's field equation might be understood as equations

stating that effects of all loops going through one creation,

such as all gravitation loops and all loops from energetic

pattern movements, cancel each other and have no effect

on that particular creation, except for its equilibrium growth.

What is gravitation? Creations lead to new creations by

the continuing inflation, plus continuing shrinking, plus

rotations, and other transformations of space-time, at any

space-time point in the remembered history of those

creations. This gives a kind of diffusion effect, which could

be responsible for gravitation. Do today's gravitation fields

evolve according to the dynamics of "the past", in particular

the dynamics of the Big Bang?

By the way, at the moment I favor space-time generator

"definitions" which result in non-projectable dimensions.

(Projections can not be done easily with few operations.)

The projections to the border which I have mentioned in a

previous posting may correspond to other degrees of

freedom though.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Tue May 08 2007 - 12:08:09 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST
*