I struggled through Binary
Physics, impressed with the author’s brilliance, dismayed at the
disagreements with much of contemporary physics, unsure whether this was a
breakthrough or more of a breakdown on Zilberberg’s part. It was often hard
reading. At times, it warranted five stars for creativity and merely one for
lucidity, though some of the topics are arcane.
Time as the Fourth Dimension, “Depth”
Let’s start with his view of time, as a quantized fourth
dimension, “depth,” with individual units that are about ten to the minus 50th
power of a second, 1/10**50 s, a decimal with 49 zeros and then a 1. A wave
passing through a location would have a series of Existences (1) and
Placeholders (0). The highest frequency pure wave would be 01010101… over the
units of “depth” (“time” from here on). A wave or half that frequency would be
01001001… These are frequencies in the range of 10**50 (ten to the fiftieth
power) Hz (= per second), whereas gamma rays (the highest-frequency waves we
know of) are 10**19 Hz, much lower in frequency. As with Fourier analysis, the
greater the range of frequencies you can use to compose a particular signal,
the more accurately you can replicate it, so having a range up to 10*50 Hz
gives lots of leeway, which is needed…because the time series of 0s
(Placeholders) and 1s (Existences) is what everything is made of.
Existences, Placeholders, and the Real World
We can compose any electromagnetic signal with our 0s and
1s up to 10**50 Hz. How do we get mass? From obstructions, the bunching up of
Existences that cannot move freely. A pure wave, 010101…, in the next “turn” (a
unit akin to time), becomes (moving to the right) 001010…, as the Existences
occupy the Placeholder positions. However, the pattern 0110110… cannot shift fully
freely one turn to the next because an Existence cannot move to where there is
already an Existence, so we have 0101101… and the change is experienced as
resistance. In Binary Physics, motion is inherently at the speed of light but
mass gets in the way, so that work is done not moving mass, but removing
obstruction and thus producing apparent acceleration.
Perception is Reality
“Apparent acceleration”? Well, it is not clear to what
extent what we perceive is real, according to Binary Physics. What we perceive
as motion, BP tells us is extinction
in one location and creation in an adjoining location (also quantized, like
time), which looks like motion of an entity.
Quantized Location
Yes, location is quantized, also: the universe is in some sense granular, with
Zilberberg estimating the spatial quantum at about 1/10**42 meter. The size of
a proton is generally stated to be 1/10**15 meter or 27 orders of magnitude
larger. The “cells” of the universe are tiny in comparison with physical
objects.
Quantum mechanics has prepared us for quantization of
physical properties like energy, and angular momentum, so quantizing time does
not come as such a big surprise, especially when it is so fine-grained at
1/10**50 of a second. Similarly, locational cells are extraordinarily small.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle indicates that the product of energy and
time uncertainty is greater than Heisenberg’s small constant, also true for the
product of momentum uncertainty and positional uncertainty; perhaps the
“graininess” of the universe in time and space contributes to the lack of
precision in these products.
Effect Following Cause?
What does come as a surprise is BP’s statement “the future influences the present no less than the
past, and the past is constantly changing….” This contradicts basic tents of
science. We do not accept that the cause happens after the effect.
Two-Dimensional Analogue: The Game of Life
The two-dimensional analogy made by BP is with The Game of Life, where
squares in a grid are given initial values of 0 or 1 (visually white or black)
and then are required to change or stay the same during a series of time steps,
where their existence (1, black) is determined by a set of rules generally
dependent on what their “neighbors” are. On a square grid, each square would
have four full-neighbors, one on each side, and another four part-neighbors,
one on each corner. Depending on the rules and the starting conditions, rather
life-like patterns and behavior can emerge. BP analogizes this to
Existences and Placeholders in eight dimensions, a familiar three plus time
(depth), plus four more, which extra four I won’t explain and do not find
persuasive.
Ten Rules to Supplement the Axioms
Much of the book describes how Existences and Placeholders and
cells in space and time can be understood to explain motion and gravity. A
weakness here, in my estimation, is the adoption of The Ten Rules of Private
Binary Physics. I’d prefer fewer rules. The need for these seems like the
addition of the epicycles to the old Ptolemaic view of the solar system to be
able to explain eclipses and “retrograde” motion. Occam’s Razor needs to be
employed.
Multiverse?
Another disagreement I have is with the idea of a multitude
(infinite?)of universes, to explain how this particular one is capable of
having human life. Yes, the anthropic principle is persuasive to me: this
universe is too well suited to our existence to be just a coincidence.
Zilberberg believes in God the Creator, as I do, so there is no need for this
multiverse hypothesis. I like that he thinks God would create something that
has the virtues that God has, while allowing (somehow!) for us to choose
between right and wrong.
Goals, Awareness, Consciousness
Zilberberg discusses in depth the degree to which systems
can be goal-seeking and even aware and conscious, and I defer to his greater
knowledge and more extensive contemplation of these issues.
Sources and Methods
The author is clearly brilliant and well-informed. His
sources and inspirations range from thinkers Dawkins and Hawking and Harari to
films The Matrix and Back to the Future. Nevertheless, I
concluded that much was mistaken, much was unclear or repetitious. This was
hard going. With almost no equations, it is hard to follow some arguments to
assure oneself of their validity.
Profound or Profoundly Wrong?
As I read the reviews on Amazon that have preceded mine, I
am unsettled by how few of the reviewers have the scientific background to
examine Binary Physics in depth. I
found BP challenging myself. despite
my own education (A.B., physics, Cornell, 1964; M.S., physics, Penn State,
1969; Ph.D., engineering, Harvard, 1974) and three decades of technical
employment.
I recall how impressed I was in my youth in the 1960s by
the iconoclastic works of the genius Immanuel Velikovski, works such as Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval, both of which were
closely argued, well documented…and now considered to be mostly wrong (see The
Velikovski Controversy). I fear this may turn out to be the case
for much of Binary Physics. What
survives such scrutiny may be of real value, however.
AMAZON LINK
😎
ReplyDelete