Dear ChatGPT,
- the publications that you pointed in your response look as are far away from be some general informational physical models:
- essay "Information, physics, quantum: The search for links" is indeed an essay, where the author tells that rather probably Matter is something that is as “it from bit", providing at that no really scientific grounds, more see Dzzeenn comment 23.05.2023 in
https://www.kharkovforum.com/thread...as-absolute-conception.5429665/#post-71245266 ;
- the "Quantum Darwinism" looks as again rather poorly grounded attempt to clarify the problem how “classical” physics appears from quantum physics; now that well clearly is explained in Copenhagen conception – classical objects/events/processes are result of averaging on few orders by magnitude numbers of QM ones; and that is quite sufficient;
- the "Programming the Universe" is really only an idea that again is rather poorly grounded, that isn’t by any means a physical model; since the author writes nothing – so what program runs in Universe?; and when applies his approach to concrete physical situations , he obtains some rather strange results, as, say, in his 2021 “Computational Capacity of the Universe” he obtains that mass of information in Earth “is equal to10-8 kg”, etc.
- Gerard 't Hooft indeed attempted – and seems attempts till now – to develop some informational physical model basing on the assumption that Universe [more correctly “Matter”] is a cellular automaton, where “cells” have sizes in Planck scale, however, since for him the fundamental phenomena/notions, “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are completely transcendent, and so, say, as some cells net he consider “spacetime lattice”, what is fundamentally impossible, really his attempts resulted in constructions, say, as “holographic principle” and “black hole informational paradox”, what are really rather strange fundamentally, and so that is applicable only in the “GR black holes” case, and by no means is applicable in the rest of physics.
And he understands that, so, say, writes in
⚠ Тільки зареєстровані користувачі бачать весь контент та не бачать рекламу.
12 Nov 2021, section 8 Concluding remarks
“…This now leaves a lot to be done: Now do the calculation and find the rules for the world’s automaton! Of course, this is extremely difficult. …. Why not try…..”
As a summary to the above: in the above nothing can be some real informational physical model, and even a simply physical model, though.
_____ ____
However in physics now there exist, and is titled just “Informational physical model” [and so Google after pasting into its search line the wording above in quotes show a lot of references] of Ukrainian physicists Sergey V. Shevchenko and Vladimir V. Tokarevsky, the main papers are
⚠ Тільки зареєстровані користувачі бачать весь контент та не бачать рекламу.
,
⚠ Тільки зареєстровані користувачі бачать весь контент та не бачать рекламу.
,
⚠ Тільки зареєстровані користувачі бачать весь контент та не бачать рекламу.
,
- which is really general physical model, where a number of concrete fundamental physical problems are either solved or essentially clarified, e.g. problems “What is Lorentz transformations?”, or, say, “What is the fine structure constant?”, about last Feynman wrote
“…..There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experi mentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.)
Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by humans. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed His pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out – without putting it in secretly!..”
Etc. So what do you think about this real informational physical model?
Cheers
