**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:46:58 -0500*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 85] Re: [time 82] discrete models, QM vs. GR"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 83] Re: [time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue, algebras"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 85] Re: [time 82] discrete models, QM vs. GR"

Dear Ben,

I just got of the phone with my friend Paul Hanna. He confirmed the

octonionic-relativity connection. We are will be working out the details

and I hope to post it here ASAP. He is not on-line... :)

Ben Goertzel wrote:

*>
*

*> 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!
*

Have you read Wheeler's papers on "It from Bit"? Several people are

busy looking into this. I am convinced that that is a fundamental

principle hiding there. I again refer you to Pratt's ratmech.ps paper

(http://boole.stanford.edu/chuguide.html#ratmech); it and Wegner's

Interactive computing model paper

(http://www.cs.brown.edu/~pw/papers/math1.ps) contain ideas that IMHO

are pointing us to it! :)

*> 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.
*

Do we look at this quantum mechanically by thinking of an ensemble of

graphs, one for each possible way that the nodes can be connected?

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

*> how the massive elements in space affect it.
*

Don't we need to consider how "this metric" is constructed by Nature? I

think that there is a mutation/selection mechanism at work, behind the

scenes as it were. Interestingly, mutation can be seen as a One -> Many

mapping and selection can be seen as a Many -> One mapping. What if

there is a symmetry or duality involved? From my discussion tonight with

Paul, I think that this will be fleshed out shortly, but as you say it

is just a crazy idea. ;)

*> 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 ... ;)
*

It tastes good to me! :) Could we think of this "feedback" as part of a

computational process that is "approximating" "absolute values of

quantum mechanical quantities x, p, "approximate" being understood as a

kind of average of quantum mechanical obscure values. Here is a kind of

contraction procedure of R^6 to R^4 by some compactification of a small

region into a point, in the expectation that the region would be quite

small compared to the classically recognizable region." Hitoshi's post

[time 72] ?

*> 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).
*

This would connect easily to Hitoshi's explanation of time (and space!)

uncertainty. We still need to take Robert's latest ideas and plug them

in, there seems to be a Fourier transform like relationship between time

and space. There will also be ideas coming in from the octonion people!

:)

*> 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
*

That is what we need, ideas that could be wrong! :)

Later,

Stephen

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 85] Re: [time 82] discrete models, QM vs. GR"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 83] Re: [time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue, algebras"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 85] Re: [time 82] discrete models, QM vs. GR"

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