[time 85] Re: [time 82] discrete models, QM vs. GR

Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:02:28 -0500

hi,

First, since Tony took his Web page down, I posted our joint paper on the
discrete version of
his physics model on my site, at

Peruse it at your leisure. Note, I do not personally think this theory is
correct, it is my discrete
twist on Tony's theory, but I do think it has elements of truth to it which
should not be ignored.

> 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... :)

An octonion-GR connection would be interesting

I am aware of many octonion-standard model connections, but not a connection
directly with GR. However this is not my speciality so there may well be
an important
one that I have overlooked!

> Have you read Wheeler's papers on "It from Bit"?

yes of course. Philosophically very inspirational. And in the right spirit of
simplicity. But falling very far short of actually saying anything
concrete that
you could use to calculate something ;)

>> 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?

I think there is one graph, and that when you compute the amplitude for a
particle
to get from A to B in the graph, you assume it takes all possible paths

But, this gets to the crux of the matter of local versus global perspectives

In the local perspective, you compute amplitudes

In the global perspective, you compute probabilities

Why this switch? Why local=amplitude, global=probability?

>> 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?

Yes. if we want to see it as evolving, however, the key question is not
the methods
of mutation/selection but the fitness function. Where does the fitness
function come from?
Ultimately we want the fitness function to be Occam's Razor -- i.e. the
universe evolved
as it did because this is the simplest way, the way that packs in the most
pattern per bit.

>> 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.

Maybe. I don't know. will think about it.

> 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] ?

The contraction procedure in my view is not related to the movement from local
to global perspectives. The contraction procedure in the tony smith 8-dim
view has to
do with viewing 4 dimensions as internal symmetry space and 4 as external
space.
There is a nice symmetry between inner and outer. Hitoshi's collapse from
6 to 4 I
have not thought about much yet.

>> 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