**Ben Goertzel** (*ben@goertzel.org*)

*Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:11:17 -0500*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 83] Re: [time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue, algebras"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue, algebras"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 80] Re: [time 77] Spacetime &consciousness"

One more comment. I am really in love with discrete physics models.

Stripping away the

fancy math and getting everything in terms of lattices and finite algebras

is incredibly

revealing. Remember, we can only test our theories up to finite precision

anyway. If it's

the case that the "magic" of continuous mathematics is needed to capture

physical theories,

that's wonderful, but it should be demonstrated rather than assumed. I

know this is an

eccentric view but I'm convinced it is correct. One can get straight from

logic to discrete

models, and I suspect that this is how the next physics revolution is going

to work -- in synch

with the computer revolution. The universe as bits!

Now let me make this more concrete.

Suppose we view the Standard Model as tony smith wanted to, as a discrete

8-D lattice

This lattice isn't ~quite~ derivable from abstract algebra, because

algebra just gives you

a graph, not a graph with weighted links. I.e., the algebra does not give

you the metric

structure.

But, what is it that GR talks about? Precisely this metric structure, and

how the massive

elements in space affect it.

Perhaps we can view the two perspectives on the cosmos as follows:

1) the local perspective sees the links in the universe graph as having

certain "standard"

weights

2) the global perspective sees the feedback between the weights on the

links and the

entities (particles) living at the nodes of the graph

This is a half-baked idea obviously, but ... ;)

GR basically says that space is curved more near a massive object. This

means that

mass is defined as that which makes weights smaller (makes a single link

correspond to

a smaller distance).

Even if these ideas are totally wrong, as is likely, they illustrate the

kind of extremely

simple framework I think needs to be adopted to get at the heart of things

More later,

ben

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 83] Re: [time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue, algebras"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue, algebras"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 80] Re: [time 77] Spacetime &consciousness"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:50 JST
*