Intelligence and In search of fundamentals : Break, join and duplicate

Intelligence and In search of fundamentals

Also view: Why our universe is mathematical?

Break, join and duplicate

Quora link: http://qr.ae/7cdYZh

Our DNA is made up of just shuffling of just 4 bits of information ATGC and from it, we get the whole DNA and then the whole cell and finally an organism with a brain that has intelligence.

It may be analogous to our computer made up of 0's and 1's. Most of the algorithm of today make use of mathematics, that is an addition, subtraction, multiplication or division.

But what living organisms do?

Can they do mathematics? I don't think so. The small bits of information just duplicate, break and join to produce new information. It may be DNA, mRNA, proteins or microRNAs

The same way perhaps our brain works, give some information to the brain, it will join it, break it or duplicate it to produce new information.

e.g. Our alphabets: A-Z, from the shuffling of it, we get words and then sentences.

A note of Zero and mathematics:

What is zero? Zero in mathematics means the absence of something.

But we use zero for representing that exists, e.g 10, 100 etc. The problem comes when we use this zero for division or multiplication. We can't divide that is not present by something which is present e.g. 0/5 or we can't multiply with a present object with something that is absent e.g. 0 X 5. We may argue that 0 X 5 is zero times 5, that is adding zero 5 times to give zero results.

But that type of system does not exist in living world. If we think zero as the absence of something and 5 as information that is present, we never multiply absence of something with the information that is present. In the living system, fundamental bits of information just break, join or duplicate.

So what is nothing in the living system?
It’s likely to be single space, where bits of information break or join

But here the question arises, how these small fundamental bits interact that is breaking and joining process. What's the rule behind the break and join?

Let us imagine something: 

The universe consists of space (which represent single nothing) and has two types of particles or information, A and B. Maybe the number of particles are constant in-universe and they are huge in number. I have taken two because just two types of particles are enough to produce information of huge complexity (such as intelligence in our brain) by the break and join.  Break or join I mean forming different kinds of arrangements.
But what can be the rule for breaking and joining? That can be related to the distance at which two pieces of information lies and their mass (that is the number of particles in an information) and the behavior of A and B (that is A will behave differently than B).
It can also be said that in order to interact, all the particles of A can't be in equilibrium with all of with B. Otherwise it will be dormant that is all forces cancel out.  It’s likely that process of breaking and joining should be random, even not completely. But what is mass, distance and behavior works which I can't infer now that will decide whether they will break or join/ repel or attract. Maybe it's directly proportional to the number of particles in an information and inversely proportional to distance and, A and B attract each other, A – A or B-B repel each other like most system works as we can see in the real world.
Can photons be made of two kinds of things, one doing  up and down along y-axis (produces electric field) and other doing up and down along z-axis producing the magnetic field and both up and down are in sync and dragged due to force?



In double slit experiment , if we observe the electron, it produces two bands instead of the interference pattern. Also, how do we observe electron? Is it by producing the electromagnetic field. Also does double slit experiment only works with coherent sources of light or all sources?
In the figure, the length of up and down represents amplitude and the speed of up and down represents wavelength. If we are observing electrons by producing the electromagnetic field, won't it disturb the wave nature of electrons
Here another question arises, how A will know that B exists so that it will attract to B because in between nothing is there.  So here another concept arises: nothing (the space) is just a field of all the unit particles or information (like in schools we have learned about the electric or magnetic field). So space is nothing but a way to transfer information between unit particles. But we can never see these different types of fields because we are not made of it. In order to see something, we must have to replicate it. e.g. We can see objects in the mirror because light is replicated ( I mean is positions of light before reflection and after reflection). So we can never see these fields but only feel its influence.

Comments are welcomed, what you all have to say about it.

Here are some of the discussion in physforum I am writing only important ones:

ozo:

I can add to that: A and B are the same particle but with different spin orientation. The basis of time (energy). fundamental energy is spin and duration of spin are time.

Me:

I agree that A and B have different spins.

But I look at time little differently. Time is related to state/motion. We can take it as any reference. For example, you took it as the duration of spin. Or standard 24 hrs which we take as reference to motion of earth 

e.g. Just take it the duration of spin as one unit time.
Imagine we look at all the particles state or position in the complete universe and take a snap than after one unit time we look again to all the particles and their position. If some the particles have changed in position, we say a change in state. If all the particles are at rest (which is not possible) then there is no change in state or time.

HarboorSeal:

Do you have some scientific reference, that there are only two types of particles in the universe, or is this just a dream that you had last night while sleeping at a Holiday Inn?

1. Proton
2. Neutron
3. Electron
4. Quark
5. Photon
6. Higgs Boson


Now which 4 of the above, do you believe are not real?

Me:

I believe all of them are real. As I said only two particles are enough for giving a universe of any complexity. For scientific evidence, I would say that take the example of today's computer software, they are made from 0s and 1s but can produce software of any complexity. The 6 particles you are talking about can be made from these two fundamental particles, provided we know what's the rule for this combination.

HarboorSeal:

Zeros and one's in binary code are not particles, and if you believe that protons, neutrons and electrons can be made from the computer binary code that was invented by humans, you have no fundamental understanding of reality or any part of the universe. I would say that you need an education, but saying that the universe is composed of zero's and one's, is in all probability not an issue of education, but of perception. I would suggest that you speak about your theory with a medical professional of some sort.

Me:

Ya, I agree that zeros and ones are binary code are not particles. I have used an analogy here, to show you how we can form complexity from two simpler objects. There is a huge difference between zero's and one's that is binary code and particles I am taking about. Zero's and one's in the computer can be increased to any extent, but the particles I am talking about their number is constant. Yes, zero's and one's like you said are imaginary and obeys mathematics rules that we apply to them. But particle exists that we all observe them. Here particles I mean is larger particles. (Don't say that we can't see the particles that you are taking about) These particles behave by laws of physics and we can't apply any imaginary rules that come to mind.

Moreover, what do you think about the simulation that we make on the computer. We make this combination of zero's and one's to behave like real world objects to predict what will happen in real world. Or you think simulation is also incorrect because zero's and one's are invented by humans.

HarboorSeal:

Is your A and B idea based upon some rational science, or is this just your idea, that you fabricated, and are calling a theory?

Me:

It is based upon rational science. I took some of the fundamental ideas of conservation of energy, Newtonian physics and fundamentals of computer and life evolution. Based upon it I made this theory. I just tried to go to the simplest thing possible. But like any other theory it needs to be proved.
I think simulation can help it. I know that it's impossible to simulate a very large number of particles but we can try for the small number of particles and predict its properties.

HarboorSeal:

Actually, if this were rational science, you would need observations of your two particles, that no other scientist believes in, and or you would need mathematical formulas to demonstrate the theory in some fashion. What you are saying that you did, is to take others ideas, put them in a blender, and create some new idea. If you are interested in the smallest particles were known, do a Google search of CERN and or the Higgs Boson.

Me:
That is what the theory says. You can't get new ideas without old ones.

Do you think mathematics is always the correct way to represent the world (I am talking about the irrational number and use of zero in some way)? 

I am from multidisciplinary field of science. (That is bioinformatics) I am not that math genius that I will give you a magic mathematical formula that will take account of all the particles in the universe. I have some limitations. But I can give some simple rules that particle has to obey and leave the other stuff to the computer. 

What if we found no reference. For example, space contains only one type of objects that has no reference with which we could distinguish it. So we say it does not exist. E.g. to distinguish red color from other, we have to match with some other color, for example, blue to say that they are both different. That is how our brain works. Does it mean we can't know everything because we have no reference for it to distinguish it.

So can we produce time machine:

I think no. It's just a state which changes, to come back to a particular state again, we have to arrange all the particles to the previous state (if we want to go to past).

Concept of Time & Do present, the past, future are all present:
I think no. We are always at the present state. Just look at all the particles in the universe and take a snap. They are at the present state. Then notice they start moving after snap due to interaction or force (actually particles are always moving). But the particles can come to the same state (i.e. present) after a very very long time. Actually, there is no concept of time at all. It's just a reference. What is present is particles moving. From the movement we calculate time.

Another question lets take two frames of reference, one at rest and another at motion, and we don't have any reference for time. Can we say the motion object is accelerating or moving with constant velocity.
Is it the biological clock that is running in our head that makes us aware of time based upon daylight and night, based upon it, it does computation and make us aware that an object is moving fast or slow looking at both to distinguish, but we can't know an object is moving in fast or slow by looking at it without a reference to a clock or without reference to other moving object. So clock is nothing but a moving object which gives us a reference of motion

Concept of Free will:
Can we predict the next state of all the particles by knowing the previous state of all the particles. If that is the case, don't we have anything called free will.
Maybe not, we don't have that. It is just based on influence. An information that has gone stronger will always influence other information in a strong way, some may break and some may join.  A particular piece of information is influenced by all other information that is present in the universe. 
But can it be a concern for us?
I don't think so we should be worried about, we can't know the state of all the particles to predict the next state.

We are only a tiny part of the universe. Even though we don't have free will if we take the entire universe, it seems like we do have free will.

If we think of whole space, the forces at any particular point are always changing as all particles are in motion. A smaller object has more impact on force than a larger object. Does that lead to quantum behavior of smaller particles i.e we can't predict its position because in order to predict it we need all the forces acting on the particle. It should not have even a minor error. So a probabilistic approach best describe it as we can't know positions of all the particles that influence on a particular particle. Same way even dice work. When we through a dice second time, the position of dice changes because the earth is in motion, so the force acting in it  also changes. Even if we don't change the position of dice, it will be probabilistic because the force acting at that place also changes  all the time.

Can we know everything?
We can only know the things that we are made up (i.e. particles which according to this theory) or that influence on the things that we are made up (i.e. force) Other than that I think we can't know anything, neither a smartest artificial intelligence will tell us even. Also, I think it's unnecessary (maybe) to know the things that don't influence us in anyways

Is there any reverse or forward ways?
If we think of a universe where particles interact due to force, then there is nothing like reverse or forward reaction. At some places or condition reaction go on the forward way and in other places reaction go in backward.

The universe is like a big machine of particles interaction, where its center of gravity holds those particles in space (analogy can be our atmosphere that earth center of gravity holds) Also its seems that universe in not expanding.

If a universe is expanding, then why don't we see it at a molecular level. Why only stars go far away, not the things that we see inside the stars? Also, math is adaptable, i.e. 0's and 1's can explain anything and of any complexity. But the 0's and 1's of universe follow a definite physics law. We cannot get anything from these 0's and 1's. So first, we should observe than describe it in mathematics. Same way Newton did it.  We can't notice if all the particle go fast or slow if distance remains somewhat same( i.e.we can't notice if there is acceleration or retardation if all the particles go for acceleration or retardation) We can notice if it's expanding through reference. e.g. Take today the distance between two particles is 1 units, we can take that as a reference and check it after some days, whether it changed or not. But the problem arises when the reference itself changes after some days. But do our memory changes with time. I think no. What in a universe we measure is the distance? From it only we derive everything, whether its  motion or time. Also, what happen to the forces when its expands. Don't the interaction between particles will change i.e.won't the way forces act should change because of more distance. We know that forces act differently with distance. If it's expanding then the way of interaction should change with an increase in time.  

Everyone must have seen a bottle falling from some height and shattering in pieces.  Do you ever see a broken glass getting back together to make a bottle ? No. Note that glass getting back together and sitting back where it didn't violate any law except the second law of thermodynamics. Is it the real case?

I believe that entropy can increase to some extent than decrease and again increase etc. But the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of the entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time.
Imagine a glass made up of a number of particles to give a single information. Now we break it to multiple information. But there is a very low chance that this multiple information will assemble together to give back the previous state. Now imagine two pieces of magnet joined to give a single information, then separate (break) that information and again leave it, it has a high chance that it produces same information that previous. But if we make an information with many lots of magnet, and again separate it and leave it, does it assemble together to give back same information?
Please share your views on entropy at http://qr.ae/7fh5Qf