avatarMichael Dalton

Summary

The article explores the concept of mathematics facilitating the emergence of new properties within an eternal mathematical universe, using the Efimov effect as a prime example, and discusses the broader implications for understanding the nature of reality and the universe.

Abstract

The article delves into the idea that mathematics, specifically within a universe composed of Platonic solids, can give rise to novel properties, as evidenced by the Efimov effect. Discovered by Vitaly Efimov, this quantum phenomenon demonstrates how three particles can interact to create a state of greater complexity, symbolized by Borromean rings. The practical observation of Efimov trimers in laboratories lends credence to the theory that mathematics can lead to the emergence of new physical laws. The article suggests that our perception of reality might be akin to interfacing with a computer, where understanding the underlying "programming" could reveal multiple perspectives on reality. It encourages an eclectic approach to universe creation, combining scientific ideas from various disciplines. The text also touches on the role of intuition and the potential influence of human beliefs and perceptions on the nature of reality, hinting at the possibility that reality might be shaped by our interactions with it.

Opinions

  • The author posits that the Efimov effect, a theoretical prediction later confirmed experimentally, provides a concrete example of how new complexity can emerge from mathematical principles in a quantum context.
  • The article speculates that the universe might be analogous to a computer interface, with our perceived reality being just the "icons" on the screen, necessitating an understanding of the underlying "programming" for a fuller comprehension of reality.
  • It is suggested that reality could be responsive to our beliefs and perceptions, potentially evolving in alignment with dominant ontological beliefs such as physicalism or the law of attraction.
  • The text encourages the use of intuition as a valid means of answering questions about reality, alongside conscious knowledge.
  • The author implies that the scientific method could be enhanced by adopting a more open-ended approach to hypothesis formulation, as illustrated by Wheeler's game of 20 questions, where reality is discovered through a process of inquiry rather than by confirming pre-existing beliefs.
  • The article promotes the idea that the placebo effect in medical research could have a parallel in our broader reality, where our collective beliefs and intuitions might pre-program our experiences and responses to the world around us.

Can mathematics create new properties? (# 6)

Emergence by Milomingo

While this article is part of a series describing ideas about features of a universe that does not have any beginning, the article is stand-alone in the sense that it discusses a specific idea which could have many other applications.

The primary idea is based on the existence of an eternal mathematical universe consisting of Platonic solids. For such a universe to be a useful foundation for our universe, somehow the mathematics would need to be capable of facilitating the emergence of new properties.

Efimov effect

In 1970, a Russian scientist, Vitaly Efimov, published a theoretical paper arguing that when three quantum particles come together, the combination creates a power which exceeds the power inherent in any two of the particles. The power or complexity that emerges from the interaction of the three particles is called an Efimov trimer. This state is symbolically represented by Borromean rings. In a Borromean ring, when one of the rings is removed, the other two rings fall apart.

Borromean Rings

In 2006, a paper was published announcing an Efimov trimer had been observed for the first time in a laboratory. In 2014, a series of Efimov trimers at different sizes, each enlarged by a factor of 22.7, were observed in three different laboratories. The existence of Efimov trimers demonstrates the Efimov state is not just a theoretical concept, new complexity can emerge when three quantum particles come together.

Efimov’s discovery was based on theory not observation; it was deduced from mathematics. The Efimov effect is associated with quantum particles. If an Efimov effect were to occur in a mathematical universe, content in such a universe would need to include quantum particles. Even though the observed Efimov effect explains the emergence of greater complexity, further research is required to discover if there are limitations on the type of effects that could arise.

The ideas presented in these articles are speculative. These ideas are intended for discussion and are not meant to preclude other possibilities. Hopefully, the ideas will encourage others to formulate specific hypotheses. For example, there may be other Efimov-like mathematical theories that explain the emergence of new phenomena. Similarly, George Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form which is discussed in subsequent articles provides an explanation for the existence of quantum phenomena. While Spencer-Brown’s analysis provides a mathematical explanation for the emergence of quantum phenomena, his approach may not be the only way such phenomena arise.

An increase in complexity associated with an Efimov state may depend on the types of quantum particles coming together. In other words, different phenomena may be observed with different sets of trimers. Since an Efimov state cannot be identified by a reductionist examination of the properties of individual particles, possible Efimov states are hypothesised rather than deduced from observed experiments. For example, love may be interpreted as an emergent phenomenon arising from particles being bound together in a particular way even though the origin of love cannot be explained using reductionist logic. The role of love will be discussed in a later article.

Deducing the features of a created universe

These articles describe an eclectic approach to creating a universe. Scientific ideas from various disciplines are brought together as building blocks in order to outline how our universe may have been created. Some researchers may argue that their research was not intended to be used in this way. Such arguments, however, are inappropriate when considered within the framework developed in these articles.

As mentioned in Article 3, Can you develop a new perspective on reality, Professor Hoffman suggests that our perception of reality is analogous to seeing icons on a desktop computer, a computer interface. Hoffman argues there is a need to understand the programming behind the icons, as well as the icons themselves in order to understand reality. The underlying program could support multiple perspectives on reality.

Fake news by Mike MacKenzie

If, as suggested by Viktor Frankl, our lives are responses to life’s challenges, then the underlying programming could include feedback mechanisms. For example, the reality we perceive could be a response to what we want to perceive. Many present day scientists see life as originating out of a meaningless Big Bang, so they interpret icons in ways that support their ontological beliefs. Those same icons, however, may also support alternative ontological beliefs. A challenge facing believers in an alternative ontology is to show how the current icons could support their alternate beliefs. Thus, while the results of science experiments may provide support for current ontological beliefs, under a broader perspective, the results may also support an alternate ontology.

One way of understanding our reality is to play Wheeler’s game of 20 questions. The final ontology is not known at the start of the game. When questions are asked, a challenge is to see what ontology could be formulated that is consistent the responses rather than requiring answers to be consistent with a pre-determined ontology. When answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions at the end of each of these articles, the ideal state is to have an open mind and then develop hypotheses that incorporate possibly surprising answers. In contrast, the current scientific method involves formulating hypotheses that build on or test an existing paradigm.

Wheeler’s game of 20 questions could include the possibility that the questions cause changes in the nature of reality. In other words, the game is a process whereby reality discovers itself and the questioner discovers a new reality. The current mainstream scientific view tends to see reality as something that is not affected by experiments designed to uncover reality. The opposite may be true, namely reality uses our scientific experiments to display new things about itself.

Using your intuition

You may choose to answer a question based on your conscious knowledge about a subject. These articles, however, encourage you to learn how to use your intuition to answer questions. There are many ways people contact their intuition. For example, why not learn a technique like muscle testing and after reading these articles come back and muscle test each question again?

These articles set out a theory of being where the fundamental nature of reality is interactive. What we see may depend on who else sees it. If we do not disclose what we see to anyone, our perception can be true for us even though no one else would agree. For example, we may be able to predict future share price movements better than chance provided we do not share that knowledge, such as a written record of our predictions, in a way that could be statistically validated. We may be prescient and trade shares profitably when no one monitors our performance.

At present, the dominant scientific paradigm is physicalism, namely reality fundamentally consists only of physical things (like matter) and any other kind of thing (including mental phenomena) also has some physical origin. Since physicalism dominates current ways of thinking, reality tends to evolve along lines consistent with the known tenets of physicalism. Some people, however, believe in, for example, a law of attraction (LOA) which is the ability to attract into our lives whatever we are focusing on. These people believe their personal stories are evidence of the existence of such a law despite the fact that no independent research consistently supports the existence of LOA. If, however, a large number of people were to believe in LOA, our reality may start to evolve in ways consistent with the LOA. In brief, despite the lack of empirical evidence to support the claims of believers in a LOA, such a law could still be true for some people.

A placebo effect is recognised by many medical researchers. For a new drug to be accepted as effective, researchers must demonstrate a control group of people who take the drug have statistically better outcomes compared to a control group who think they may be taking the drug but in fact are just taking a sugar pill. Drug researchers often find that the health status of around 30% of patients improved as a result of taking part in trials even when they took a placebo. A patient’s body seems to have knowledge about how to improve its own health even when a patient does not consciously know how his/her body knows what to do. Could the same principle apply to our concept of reality? Could our reality include many people who have been pre-programmed to respond in a particular way? One of our challenges could be to believe in our own intuition rather than follow the herd.

The question for this article is:

Can mathematics explain how new laws of physics emerge?

For a preview of more articles like this, please click on the ‘Look Inside’ feature for the book Orbital Stars by Michael Dalton available from https://www.amazon.com

To view the headings of all the articles to be published in this series please click on https://readmedium.com/orbiting-stars-and-origin-of-our-universe-338906930f51

Consciousness
Science
Space
Ideas
Life
Recommended from ReadMedium