Using Object Oriented Programming to revolutionize physics?

[Michael Helland]

Hello everyone,

I've got an abstract idea for ya.

It sort of follows some of the ideas that Leibniz had:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz#Information_technology

Imagine using an object in a program to depict some fundamental
substance.

The fundamental substance isn't an atom, or a particle or boson or
quark, like electrons and photons.

But it has properties and methods that allow it to act and interact
with other objects.

Keeping in mind that it doesn't represent a physical object, what if
many of these interacting objects could demonstrate complexity that
resembles everyday objects?

A thermometer for instance. Simple mechanical things.

Or life. Could composite objects resembling plants, animals, and human
beings exist in the complexity of the interactions in the fundamental
objects?

Assuming so, we can start getting into the difficult parts.

Information science examines the processing of information in a
physical resource.

In this case all the properties of the objects compose the information
in the computer's physical resource, such as the RAM or on disk.

But we have artificial life, and artificial intelligence in that
information.

And if we have artificial human life, we have a human brain.

That virtual brain-like thing exists within the context of the
information in the computer's physical resource.

That virtual brain creates a new virtual resource for information, a
new type of information in its unique resource that exists in a unique
concept.

Within the neural pathways in the artificial intelligence arises a new
space, time, and even matter that's relative to the artificial
observer.

The electrons and photons we study in science exist as information in
the virtual resource.

Presumably, the information that arises from the virtual resource
exhibits quantum mechanics and general relativity.

This seems to agree with a general trend in physics today. Here is an
article that has gained some popularity:

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/archives/sp07/newtheory-lanza.html
<quote>
A New Theoryv of the Universe
Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by putting life into the
equation
By Robert Lanza
</quote>

This is a multidisciplinary study that includes quantum mechanics,
general relativity, neuroscience, information science, and computing.

The last discipline meaning that us computer programmers have the
unique position of being able to intuit what many consider counter
intuitive, ideas that the physicists themselves are going to have a
very difficult time coming to grips with.

Here's a larger description of the main idea with a code example:

http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

 

[Daniel Pitts]

Hello everyone,

I've got an abstract idea for ya.

It sort of follows some of the ideas that Leibniz had:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz#Information_technology

Imagine using an object in a program to depict some fundamental
substance.

The fundamental substance isn't an atom, or a particle or boson or
quark, like electrons and photons.

But it has properties and methods that allow it to act and interact
with other objects.

Keeping in mind that it doesn't represent a physical object, what if
many of these interacting objects could demonstrate complexity that
resembles everyday objects?

A thermometer for instance. Simple mechanical things.

Or life. Could composite objects resembling plants, animals, and human
beings exist in the complexity of the interactions in the fundamental
objects?

Assuming so, we can start getting into the difficult parts.

Information science examines the processing of information in a
physical resource.

In this case all the properties of the objects compose the information
in the computer's physical resource, such as the RAM or on disk.

But we have artificial life, and artificial intelligence in that
information.

And if we have artificial human life, we have a human brain.

That virtual brain-like thing exists within the context of the
information in the computer's physical resource.

That virtual brain creates a new virtual resource for information, a
new type of information in its unique resource that exists in a unique
concept.

Within the neural pathways in the artificial intelligence arises a new
space, time, and even matter that's relative to the artificial
observer.

The electrons and photons we study in science exist as information in
the virtual resource.

Presumably, the information that arises from the virtual resource
exhibits quantum mechanics and general relativity.

This seems to agree with a general trend in physics today. Here is an
article that has gained some popularity:

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/archives/sp07/newtheory-lanza.html
<quote>
A New Theoryv of the Universe
Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by putting life into the
equation
By Robert Lanza
</quote>

This is a multidisciplinary study that includes quantum mechanics,
general relativity, neuroscience, information science, and computing.

The last discipline meaning that us computer programmers have the
unique position of being able to intuit what many consider counter
intuitive, ideas that the physicists themselves are going to have a
very difficult time coming to grips with.

Here's a larger description of the main idea with a code example:

http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Have you ever played with Conway's "Game of Life"? It is a very simple
cellular automata simulation with surprisingly complex results.

 

[Michael Helland]

Have you ever played with Conway's "Game of Life"? It is a very simple
cellular automata simulation with surprisingly complex results.

I've played with cellular automata and complexity.

Wolfram's book on the subject was a big influence on the ideas above.

I want to re-iterate one of the points above.

That what I'm suggesting here is counter-intuitive to how physicists
look at the world. And that if its between a physicist and a computer
programmer, the computer programmer is more likely to understand the
ideas, whereas physicists are left scratching their heads, or simply
dismissive of the radical new ideas.

So the experts in computer programming are going to have to be leaders
of this new science.

That said, does anyone here understand the techniques described above?
Specifically what the two sets of information are and how they are
different.

 

[Philipp]

I've played with cellular automata and complexity.

Wolfram's book on the subject was a big influence on the ideas above.

I want to re-iterate one of the points above.

That what I'm suggesting here is counter-intuitive to how physicists
look at the world. And that if its between a physicist and a computer
programmer, the computer programmer is more likely to understand the
ideas, whereas physicists are left scratching their heads, or simply
dismissive of the radical new ideas.

So the experts in computer programming are going to have to be leaders
of this new science.

That said, does anyone here understand the techniques described above?
Specifically what the two sets of information are and how they are
different.

You might be interested in
http://lslwww.epfl.ch/biowall/index.html

Phil

 

[Michael Helland]

You might be interested inhttp://lslwww.epfl.ch/biowall/index.html

That would be a potential way to implement the idea.

But the main idea, which many people simply don't understand, could
just as easily be understood from a Java POV.

The main idea is that we're dealing with information that creates
through complexity a second set of information with a unique nature.

Implementing that dualism, which if you can follow the idea seems
clearly possible with Object Oriented Programming, has never been done
mathematically before.

The physicists working with their equations simply don't have the
perspective to see the sophisticated capabilities of the type of
mathematics we use with Java and similar languages.

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

The physicists working with their equations simply don't have the
perspective to see the sophisticated capabilities of the type of
mathematics we use with Java and similar languages.

So what are you on about? Do you propose to do it, are you looking for
people to help you, do it for you, having done it for you?

You don't revolutionize science by posting to a newsgroup. (Also, as a
physicist, you kind of tipped me off, which may of course have well been
the point.)

/W

 

[Daniel Pitts]

So what are you on about? Do you propose to do it, are you looking for
people to help you, do it for you, having done it for you?

You don't revolutionize science by posting to a newsgroup. (Also, as a
physicist, you kind of tipped me off, which may of course have well been
the point.)

/W

I don't think you can "easily" model a quantum-mechanical model with
standard OO approach anyway.

 

[Nigel Wade]

Michael Helland wrote:

The last discipline meaning that us computer programmers have the
unique position of being able to intuit what many consider counter
intuitive, ideas that the physicists themselves are going to have a
very difficult time coming to grips with.

I think that you'll find the idea that physicists will find hard to come to
terms with is that a computer scientist (read. engineer) will have a better
understanding of the philosophy of science and nature than a natural scientist.

 

[John W. Kennedy]

This seems to agree with a general trend in physics today. Here is an
article that has gained some popularity:

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/archives/sp07/newtheory-lanza.html
<quote>
A New Theoryv of the Universe
Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by putting life into the
equation
By Robert Lanza
</quote>

Here's a précis: "All my friends would laugh at me if I joined a real
religion, but death is beginning to scare me, so I'm going to make a
religion up out of thin air and pretend it's 'scientific', so I can fool
myself into believing it without being hassled."

The last discipline meaning that us computer programmers have the
unique position of being able to intuit what many consider counter
intuitive, ideas that the physicists themselves are going to have a
very difficult time coming to grips with.

Translation: "I'm one of the last people on Earth to discover
object-oriented programming, and it's suddenly occurred to me that this
would be a useful way of performing simulations. I bet no one's ever
thought of that before. Anyway, I think it's more interesting than
stupid, boring differential equations."

--
John W. Kennedy
"If once we [devils] can produce our perfect work — the Materialist
Magician, the man, not using but veritably worshiping, what he vaguely
calls 'forces' while denying the existence of 'spirits' — then the end
of the war will be in sight."
-- C. S. Lewis: "The Screwtape Letters"

 

[John W. Kennedy]

I don't think you can "easily" model a quantum-mechanical model with
standard OO approach anyway.

....except for a local hidden variables model.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

 

[Daniel Pitts]

....except for a local hidden variables model.

Which has been proven incorrect.

 

[John W. Kennedy]

Which has been proven incorrect.

Well, yes, there is that eensy, tiny, wee little technicality. Actually,
I suppose what he's going for is a sort of marriage of a global hidden
variables model and William Reich's "orgone" theory.

--
John W. Kennedy
"It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common
sense and can't see things as they are. Anything that anybody talks
about, and says there's a good deal in it, extends itself indefinitely
like a vista in a nightmare. And a dog is an omen, and a cat is a
mystery, and a pig is a mascot, and a beetle is a scarab, calling up all
the menagerie of polytheism from Egypt and old India; Dog Anubis and
great green-eyed Pasht and all the holy howling Bulls of Bashan; reeling
back to the bestial gods of the beginning, escaping into elephants and
snakes and crocodiles; and all because you are frightened of four words:

"‘He was made Man.'"
-- G. K. Chesterton: "The Oracle of the Dog"

 

[Michael Helland]

So what are you on about?

Well, so far, I have this idea, but I'm not sure if anyone else gets
it.

So that's step 1.

Do you propose to do it, are you looking for
people to help you, do it for you, having done it for you?

I propose to do it, but I don't have all the expertise. I don't think
anyone does.

The relevant fields are at the computer science, neurobiology, and
quantum mechanics.

I'm an expert at computer programming but not the others.

So I'm looking to form a team of researchers.

That's after step 1 though.

You don't revolutionize science by posting to a newsgroup. (Also, as a
physicist, you kind of tipped me off, which may of course have well been
the point.)

You are right, and I appreciate your comments.

I am here to find someone who understands my ideas.

It doesn't seem that physicists are going to be among the first to get
it.

But I have a feeling fellow programmers will.

 

[Michael Helland]

I don't think you can "easily" model a quantum-mechanical model with
standard OO approach anyway.

That is good news!

What I am suggesting is not standard at all.

To some people, it's just plain bizarre and incomprehensible, though I
think its self-evident and fairly self-explanatory.

Which of those describes your feelings on it?

 

[Daniel Pitts]

That is good news!

What I am suggesting is not standard at all.

To some people, it's just plain bizarre and incomprehensible, though I
think its self-evident and fairly self-explanatory.

Which of those describes your feelings on it?

My feelings are that if you have the idea, you should implement it. If
you have trouble implementing it, then perhaps you're not quite as smart
as a physicist after all.

 

[Christian]

I don't really see anything revolutionizing new in your ideas ..

After all this is how physicists simulate stuff for years (or should I
say decades?).

Creating little Objects, defining their attributes and interaction.

Then finding in Simulation the balance between accuracy and computing
power. With few objects you might get nothing close to reality.. with
too many you need to much computing power.

I have seen a program that did exactly this for simulating weaknesses in
material years ago.

Though as Computer Scientist or programmer you should see that a major
problem here is computing power.

Can you do a O(n) algorithm for the interaction? Probably not .. at
least not for anything more complex interaction .. like a field..
O(n^2) might already be to much to simulate a large amount of objects..
specially if you want to use small/meaningful dt.

Other problems are of course the RAM to even reach minimum complexity
for the system to work. (You won't be able to create even one object for
every 10000 Braincells, not with todays machines)


If you want to see whats going on in science don't read popular
articles. Read papers!

Christian

 

[Michael Helland]

I don't really see anything revolutionizing new in your ideas ..

After all this is how physicists simulate stuff for years (or should I
say decades?).

What I find revolutionary is the use of one set of information in a
physical resource to organize into a virtual resource for a new second
set of information of a different kind.

Physicists have been simulating stuff for years, but only with the one
set of data.

The second set is innovative.

 

[Michael Helland]

Michael Helland wrote:

Translation: "I'm one of the last people on Earth to discover
object-oriented programming, and it's suddenly occurred to me that this
would be a useful way of performing simulations. I bet no one's ever
thought of that before.

My thesis isn't "use OOP to do simulations."

I'm suggesting a simulation that contains an internal observer.

That's never been done before.

 

[Michael Helland]

My feelings are that if you have the idea, you should implement it.

Copernicus had a revolutionary idea.

Of course, all the smart people that lived when he did shot that idea
full of holes.

It wasn't until Kepler and then Newton that it really got implemented
correctly.


What I'm describing requires expertise of quantum mechanics,
neurobiology, and computing.

No one person has that kind of expertise.

 

[Daniel Pitts]

Copernicus had a revolutionary idea.

Of course, all the smart people that lived when he did shot that idea
full of holes.

Some how I thought you would go there. Just because one person was
rejected but was revolutionary doesn't mean anything about the current
argument. It *could* be that you're ideas are revolutionary, but until
you flesh them out a bit more, it'd be hard for me to judge.

It wasn't until Kepler and then Newton that it really got implemented
correctly. Copernicus, you are not.


What I'm describing requires expertise of quantum mechanics,
neurobiology, and computing.

So far you haven't described anything, only vague ideas and an assertion
that no one has done it yet.

No one person has that kind of expertise.

Are you positive? What makes you think those three areas of research are
mutually exclusive?

What level of expertise? Do you really need one person who has
experience in all three, or three people who each have experience in one?

If you can expand your ideas a little bit, perhaps into a form that is
somewhat more concrete, then you might have something that interests me.