SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

Posts: 23497
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Cuchulainn wrote:
What's the take by the august members on this?

“The great delusion of modernity, is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities. But they explain nothing.”

― Ludwig Wittgenstein

“Wittgenstein once said: the mystery is, why does the universe exist at all? ”

Why should we believe that Wittgenstein's question is well-formed?

To ask "why" is to impose human preconceptions on the nature of the system under study. But what if the problem with answering the question is with the preconceptions and not the system.

Collector
Posts: 3372
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Back to Newton gravity. I was playing with this though. Assume we had already super precise measure devices when the Newton gravity theory first came into play. And that one had first derived bending of light from his theory 2GM/(c^2r). Assume one super easy could measure bending of light. Then assume one first had used light bending to find the big G (instead only things with rest-mass such as lead balls and planets). Then G would simply have twice the value of today. But one would quickly have figured out that the orbital velocity of the moon and planets etc all where off from predictions from Newton (first calibrated to light bending).  Assume one held on to that G was fixed and holy. Now one had to invent a new theory to fix Newton. So would we than have a inverse GR almost? where masses bent spacetime the other way around to compensate for this. In other words the current "form" GR is possibly a function that light deflection is hard to measure and came much later than other gravity phenomena that where much easier to calibrate to? Well I see also challenges with this, but yes I think for some theories the event sequence can play an important role for how a model is interpreted and developed further.
Last edited by Collector on February 18th, 2018, 7:36 pm

Cuchulainn
Topic Author
Posts: 54509
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Cuchulainn wrote:
What's the take by the august members on this?

“The great delusion of modernity, is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities. But they explain nothing.”

― Ludwig Wittgenstein

“Wittgenstein once said: the mystery is, why does the universe exist at all? ”

Why should we believe that Wittgenstein's question is well-formed?

To ask "why" is to impose human preconceptions on the nature of the system under study.  But what if the problem with answering the question is with the preconceptions and not the system.

It might have been translated by an editor. By the question is crystal clear.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com

What is 2^77232917 -1?

Posts: 23497
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Cuchulainn wrote:
Cuchulainn wrote:
What's the take by the august members on this?

“The great delusion of modernity, is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities. But they explain nothing.”

― Ludwig Wittgenstein

“Wittgenstein once said: the mystery is, why does the universe exist at all? ”

Why should we believe that Wittgenstein's question is well-formed?

To ask "why" is to impose human preconceptions on the nature of the system under study.  But what if the problem with answering the question is with the preconceptions and not the system.

It might have been translated by an editor. By the question is crystal clear.

"What is the color of the last digit of pi" is an equally clear (and nonsensical) question.

Posts: 23497
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Collector wrote:
Back to Newton gravity. I was playing with this though. Assume we had already super precise measure devices when the Newton gravity theory first came into play. And that one had first derived bending of light from his theory 2GM/(c^2r). Assume one super easy could measure bending of light. Then assume one first had used light bending to find the big G (instead of standard masses). Then G would simply have twice the value of today. But one would quickly have figured out that the orbital velocity of the moon and planets etc all where off from predictions from Newton (first calibrated to light bending).  Assume one held on to that G was fixed and holy. Now one had to invent a new theory to fix Newton. So would we than have a inverse GR almost? where masses bent spacetime the other way around to compensate for this. In other words GR is possibly a function that light deflection is hard to measure and came much later than other gravity phenomena that where much easier to calibrate to? Well I see also challenges with this, but yes I think for some theories the event sequence can play an important role for how a model is interpreted and developed further.
Or maybe the light of the sun attracts passing photons? (Orthogonally intersecting photons bend each other's trajectories)

Or Phlogiston!

Cuchulainn
Topic Author
Posts: 54509
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Cuchulainn wrote:
Why should we believe that Wittgenstein's question is well-formed?

To ask "why" is to impose human preconceptions on the nature of the system under study.  But what if the problem with answering the question is with the preconceptions and not the system.

It might have been translated by an editor. By the question is crystal clear.

"What is the color of the last digit of pi" is an equally clear (and nonsensical) question.

That's easy: pi is irrational, thus there is no last digit (of any hue).
http://www.datasimfinancial.com

What is 2^77232917 -1?

Collector
Posts: 3372
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Cuchulainn wrote:
Cuchulainn wrote:
It might have been translated by an editor. By the question is crystal clear.

"What is the color of the last digit of pi" is an equally clear (and nonsensical) question.

That's easy: pi is irrational, thus there is no last digit (of any hue).

If the universe had a finite lifetime and there is a maximum digits that can be crunched per time unit (even using the whole universe as a super computer), then there is a last digit? (but of course now you are on the atomist thread that says the universe is infinite in space and time, so then no last digit)

What is the minimum mass of pi ? Because it takes mass (or energy) to store something, in particular irrational's?  > the mass-gap (?). Try to be rational now in a world of irrational's!

Posts: 23497
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Cuchulainn wrote:
Cuchulainn wrote:
It might have been translated by an editor. By the question is crystal clear.

"What is the color of the last digit of pi" is an equally clear (and nonsensical) question.

That's easy: pi is irrational, thus there is no last digit (of any hue).
Exactly! Not all objects have a value for all attributes. For example, pi has no last digit (which is easy to prove in an atomist universe).

So does the universe have a value for attribute "why"?

For that matter, why does pi exist at all?

Collector
Posts: 3372
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Cuchulainn wrote:
"What is the color of the last digit of pi" is an equally clear (and nonsensical) question.

That's easy: pi is irrational, thus there is no last digit (of any hue).

Exactly!  Not all objects have a value for all attributes.  For example, pi has no last digit (which is easy to prove in an atomist universe).

So does the universe have a value for attribute "why"?

For that matter, why does pi exist at all?

to give us a hint of finite universe hypothesis is flawed

Posts: 23497
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Collector wrote:
What is the minimum mass of pi ? Because it takes mass (or energy) to store something, in particular irrational's?  > the mass-gap (?). Try to be rational now in a world of irrational's!
A very good question!

The mass of the Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe_formula) is quite miniscule (it's under a kilobit in size (or about 3.61x10-35 kg) but the mass-energy to run the formula to completion is infinite.

Collector
Posts: 3372
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Collector wrote:
What is the minimum mass of pi ? Because it takes mass (or energy) to store something, in particular irrational's?  > the mass-gap (?). Try to be rational now in a world of irrational's!

A very good question!

The mass of the Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe_formula) is quite miniscule (it's under a kilobit in size (or about 3.61x10-35 kg) but the mass-energy to run the formula to completion is infinite.

what are the kilobit difference in the formulas for pi, phi, e etc. Could this establish some relative mass/relationship between the irrationals? And for a given time window what is the relative number of digits the various formulas would be able to crunch out for pi, e, phi ....

Posts: 23497
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Collector wrote:
Collector wrote:
What is the minimum mass of pi ? Because it takes mass (or energy) to store something, in particular irrational's?  > the mass-gap (?). Try to be rational now in a world of irrational's!

A very good question!

The mass of the Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe_formula) is quite miniscule (it's under a kilobit in size (or about 3.61x10-35 kg) but the mass-energy to run the formula to completion is infinite.

what are the kilobit difference in the formulas for pi, phi, e etc. Could this establish some relative mass/relationship between the irrationals? And for a given time window what is the relative number of digits the various formulas would be able to crunch out for pi, e, phi ....
Interesting!

But how does one handle the fact that each irrational might have many short algorithms? Just look at the e^5 thread for dozens of ways to compute e^1. Might there be a trade-off (or Pareto frontier) between initial algorithm mass and algorithm energy required to produce N bits of the number?

Perhaps the more important relative mass/relationship between the irrationals isn't in the kilobit size of the generating formula but in the functional form of the O(f(N)) execution energy requirements.

Cuchulainn
Topic Author
Posts: 54509
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Just look at the e^5 thread for dozens of ways to compute e.

Why, thank you.

In fact, the thread could be generalised to any a scalar-valued unimodal function of a scalar variable.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com

What is 2^77232917 -1?

Collector
Posts: 3372
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Cuchulainn wrote:
Just look at the e^5 thread for dozens of ways to compute e.

Why, thank you.

In fact, the thread could be generalised to any a scalar-valued unimodal function of a scalar variable.

Thank $\mbox{you}^{e^5}$!

yes what is the efficient frontier here? in the the e^5 thread?

Collector
Posts: 3372
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

### Re: "Unified Revolution" new book by Espen Haug

Does Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Collapse at the Planck Scale? Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle Becomes the Certainty Principle (version 3, previous versions had series of serious typos I think, I am not certain)

Einstein was of course right! God dose not throw dice, only uncertain physicist/people belive the universe is ultimately ruled by uncertainty. Me and Albert we are confident people. I am fully certain on this. The bad news; certainty only last for one Planck second. So I was certain, but now I feel a bit uncertain, and the last word before this comma is a Joke!