The mathematical nature of the universe, consciousness, causality, space, time, matter and elementary particle: the universe is a self-driven parallel computing automaton; consciousness is a Turing machine’s subjective mathematical model of the objective universe

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Particle ◽  
Mathematical Model ◽  
Parallel Computing ◽  
World Line ◽  
Situation Model ◽  
Space Time ◽  
Particle Methods ◽  
Technical Limitation ◽  
Game Of Life ◽  
The Universe

Background/introduction This study is to discover the nature of the universe, consciousness, causality, space, time, matter and elementary particle. Methods Comparing the universe to a Game of Life system. Results Found that the universe and a Game of Life system have the similar mathematical nature. Conclusions Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a self-driven objective parallel computing automaton which evolves by itself automatically – Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this situation model. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. Consciousness is actually the use of a mathematical model by a Turing machine (TM). A TM’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices shouldn’t be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except Schrodinger equation (or its counterpart) which is the only actual causality of the objective-reality, any other causality is only a (subjective) Granger causality.

scholarly journals .The mathematical nature of the universe and consciousness: the universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities; consciousness is a Turing machine’s subjective mathematical model of the objective universe

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Particle ◽  
Mathematical Model ◽  
World Line ◽  
Conscious Experience ◽  
Many Worlds ◽  
External Observer ◽  
Objective Reality ◽  
Technical Limitation ◽  
Subjective Reality ◽  
The Universe

Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.

scholarly journals The mathematical nature of the universe and consciousness: the universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities; consciousness is a Turing machine’s subjective mathematical model of the objective universe

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Model ◽  
World Line ◽  
Situation Model ◽  
Mathematical Structure ◽  
Many Worlds ◽  
Objective Reality ◽  
Technical Limitation ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Language Network

Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities; the universe is an objective mathematical structure which keeps evolving by itself automatically. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. Consciousness is actually the use of a mathematical model by a Turing machine (TM). A TM’s consciousness or decisions shouldn’t be able to alter/impact/change the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except Schrodinger equation (or its counterpart) which is the only actual causality of the objective reality, any other causality is only a (subjective) Granger causality.

scholarly journals The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities; subjective consciousness is the use of mathematical models by a Turing machine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Particle ◽  
Turing Machine ◽  
World Line ◽  
Conscious Experience ◽  
Physical Interaction ◽  
External Observer ◽  
Objective Reality ◽  
Technical Limitation ◽  
Subjective Reality ◽  
The Universe

Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. The so-called “physical interaction” (aka objective interaction) among any number of elementary particles is consistent with the so-called “physical law”. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.

scholarly journals My mind is not the universe – where/what is the universe?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Particle ◽  
Parallel Computing ◽  
Schrödinger Equation ◽  
Schrodinger Equation ◽  
Component Part ◽  
Mathematical Equation ◽  
Control Logic ◽  
Technical Limitation ◽  
Wave Particle Duality ◽  
The Universe

In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. The conventionally-called “physical/objective reality” around my conventionally-called “physical/objective body” is actually a geometric mathematical model (being generated/mathematically-modeled by my brain) – it's actually a subset/component/part/element of my brain’s mind/consciousness. A reality is a situation model (SM). Our universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton (aka state machine) which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of our universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). Our universe has the same nature as a Game of Life system – both are autonomous objective parallel-computing automata. If we are happy to accept randomness, then it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program directly-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or directly-fated) worldline of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or another mathematical equation/function which is yet to be discovered) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of our universe, every other causality (of our universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation (or the aforementioned yet-to-be-discovered mathematical equation/function) only. Consciousness plays no causal role (“epiphenomenalism”), or in other words, any cognitive/behavioural activity can in principle be carried out without consciousness (“conscious inessentialism”). If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, then time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective universe, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of our universe.

scholarly journals My mind is not the universe – where/what is the universe?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Particle ◽  
Parallel Computing ◽  
Schrödinger Equation ◽  
Schrodinger Equation ◽  
Component Part ◽  
Mathematical Equation ◽  
Control Logic ◽  
Technical Limitation ◽  
Wave Particle Duality ◽  
The Universe

In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. The conventionally-called “physical/objective reality” around my conventionally-called “physical/objective body” is actually a geometric mathematical model (being generated/mathematically-modeled by my brain) – it's actually a subset/component/part/element of my brain’s mind/consciousness. A reality is a situation model (SM). Our universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton (aka state machine) which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of our universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). Our universe has the same nature as a Game of Life system – both are autonomous objective parallel-computing automata. If we are happy to accept randomness, then it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program directly-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or directly-fated) worldline of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or another mathematical equation/function which is yet to be discovered) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of our universe, every other causality (of our universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation (or the aforementioned yet-to-be-discovered mathematical equation/function) only. Consciousness plays no causal role (“epiphenomenalism”), or in other words, any cognitive/behavioural activity can in principle be carried out without consciousness (“conscious inessentialism”). If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, then time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective universe, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of our universe.

scholarly journals The universe is expanding by entirely moving at some very high speed and not by flying away of the galaxies from each other

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Salah Abunayib
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
World Line ◽  
Space Time ◽  
Point Particle ◽  
Red Shift ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Distant Star ◽  
Entire Universe ◽  
The Universe ◽  
The Way

<p>Expansion of the universe has already been confirmed by the Hubble discovered nebular red-shift. But, is it expanding in the simple Newtonian way that the distance between any observed distant star and the observer is continuously increasing? The argument against this is: If so, then the apparent brightness and size of that distant star will continuously decrease and thus the stars at the outer edge of the visible universe will disappear in no time. To understand the way in which the universe is expanding it is important, in accordance with the special theory of relativity, to bear in mind the fundamental difference between the way electromagnetic waves spread and the way Newtonian point particles move. Accordingly, the Hubble discovered nebular red-shift is explained here as due to relative motion between the Newtonian point particle observer, which is moving along with the entire universe, and the space-time fixed origins (Events) of the received pulses of light. But, as the source is also moving with the entire universe, these space-time fixed origins are continuously repeated on the continuous world line of the star and hence the recession is continuously repeated while the star remains at the same fixed distance from the observer.</p>

Translocations In Space-Time and Simultaneous States of the Universe: Convergent Quantifications and Alternative Solutions from the Principles of Physics for the Challenges of “Time Travel” and “Parallel Universes”

2016 ◽  
pp. 4058-4069
Author(s):  
Michael A Persinger
Keyword(s):  
Single Photon ◽  
Rest Mass ◽  
Space Time ◽  
Hydrogen Line ◽  
Magnetic Forces ◽  
Universal Space ◽  
Potential Applications ◽  
Order Of Magnitude ◽  
Alternative Solutions ◽  
The Universe

                                Translation of four dimensional axes anywhere within the spatial and temporal boundaries of the universe would require quantitative values from convergence between parameters that reflect these limits. The presence of entanglement and volumetric velocities indicates that the initiating energy for displacement and transposition of axes would be within the upper limit of the rest mass of a single photon which is the same order of magnitude as a macroscopic Hamiltonian of the modified Schrödinger wave function. The representative metaphor is that any local 4-D geometry, rather than displaying restricted movement through Minkowskian space, would instead expand to the total universal space-time volume before re-converging into another location where it would be subject to cause-effect. Within this transient context the contributions from the anisotropic features of entropy and the laws of thermodynamics would be minimal.  The central operation of a fundamental unit of 10-20 J, the hydrogen line frequency, and the Bohr orbital time for ground state electrons would be required for the relocalized manifestation. Similar quantified convergence occurs for the ~1012 parallel states within space per Planck’s time which solve for phase-shift increments where Casimir and magnetic forces intersect.  Experimental support for these interpretations and potential applications is considered. The multiple, convergent solutions of basic universal quantities suggest that translations of spatial axes into adjacent spatial states and the transposition of four dimensional configurations any where and any time within the universe may be accessed but would require alternative perspectives and technologies.

An Interview with the Physicist that Her Head in the Universe and Both Feet on the Earth

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adib Rifqi Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Particle Physics ◽  
Space Time ◽  
Additional Dimension ◽  
The Earth ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
The Universe

Put simply, Lisa Randall’s job is to figure out how the universe works, and what it’s made of. Her contributions to theoretical particle physics include two models of space-time that bear her name. The first Randall–Sundrum model addressed a problem with the Standard Model of the universe, and the second concerned the possibility of a warped additional dimension of space. In this work, we caught up with Randall to talk about why she chose a career in physics, where she finds inspiration, and what advice she’d offer budding physicists. This article has been edited for clarity. My favourite quote in this interview is, “Figure out what you enjoy, what your talents are, and what you’re most curious to learn about.” If you insterest in her work, you can contact her on Twitter @lirarandall.

An Interview with the Physicist that Her Head in the Universe and Both Feet on the Earth

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adib Rifqi Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Particle Physics ◽  
Space Time ◽  
Additional Dimension ◽  
The Earth ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
The Universe

Put simply, Lisa Randall’s job is to figure out how the universe works, and what it’s made of. Her contributions to theoretical particle physics include two models of space-time that bear her name. The first Randall–Sundrum model addressed a problem with the Standard Model of the universe, and the second concerned the possibility of a warped additional dimension of space. In this work, we caught up with Randall to talk about why she chose a career in physics, where she finds inspiration, and what advice she’d offer budding physicists. This article has been edited for clarity. My favourite quote in this interview is, “Figure out what you enjoy, what your talents are, and what you’re most curious to learn about.” If you insterest in her work, you can contact her on Twitter @lirarandall.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Lane Craig
Keyword(s):  
Space Time ◽  
Cosmological Argument ◽  
Philosophical Literature ◽  
The Past ◽  
Classical Space ◽  
Kalam Cosmological Argument ◽  
Kalām Cosmological Argument ◽  
The Universe

A survey of recent philosophical literature on the kalam cosmological argument reveals that arguments for the finitude of the past and, hence, the beginning of the universe remain robust. Plantinga’s brief criticisms of Kant’s argument in his First Antinomy concerning time are shown not to be problematic for the kalam argument. This chapter addresses, one by one, the two premises of the kalam, focusing on their philosophical aspects. The notion of infinity, both actual and potential, is discussed in relation to the coming into being of the universe. In addition, the scientific aspects of the two premises are also, briefly, addressed. Among these are the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which proves that classical space-time cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. This, among other factors, lends credence to the kalam argument’s second premise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document