System synergies: Chaotic or predictable?

S.C. Woon, "Riemann zeta function is a fractal" (preprint 06/94)

"[We] infer three corollaries from Voronin’s theorem [on the ’universality’ of the Riemann zeta function]. The first is interesting, the second is a strange and amusing consequence, and the third is ludicrous and shocking (but a consequence nevertheless)."

"Corollary 1 ("interesting") Riemann zeta function is a fractal."

Woon’s innovation here is to devise analytic function f based on the zeta function itself (involving translations and rescalings), in order to show that zeta replicates its own behaviour infinitely often at all scales.

"Since ao can be arbitrarily chosen, there are self-similarities at all scales. Therefore, Riemann zeta function is a fractal."

He goes on to show that you can choose f to be based on the zeta function not only via translation and dilation, but also invovling rotation and reflection. The result is that we have self-similarities between discs at different scales and orientations."

"Riemann zeta function is fractal in the sense that the Mandelbrot set is fractal (self-similarities between a region bounded by a closed loop C and other regions bounded by closed Cm’ of the same shape at smaller scales and/or orientations). The fractal property of zeta is not "infinitely recursive" as in Koch snowflake. Such infinite recursions in a function will render the function non-differentiable, whereas zeta is infinitely differentiable. So, the manifold of zeta function is not of fractal dimension."

"All Dirichlet L-functions are also fractal. This follows from the remark following Voronin’s theorem in Voronin’s paper."

"Corollary 2 ("strange and amusing") Riemann zeta function is a ’library’ of all possible smooth continuous line drawings in a plane."

Imagine all the ways an analytic function can map a line segment, say the vertical diameter of |z| < 1/4, into the complex plane. Woon points out that every imaginable kind of shape (an outline Mickey Mouse is used as an example) can be drawn in this way. It then follows from the Universality Theorem that the zeta function’s behaviour on segments of Re[s] = 3/4 (or any other line between 1/2 and 1) can replicate any such shape.

"Corollary 3 ("ludicrous and shocking") Riemann zeta function is a concrete "representation" of the giant book of theorems referred to by Paul Halmos."

Woon explains that you can represent arbitrarily long Morse code messages as oscillating curves representing ’signals’. Every possible one of these messages is reproducible to within a workable accuracy by the zeta function. So the entire Encylopedia Britannica could be deduced as a Morse Code transmission encoded as a wave which was the image of a vertical segment of length 1/2 on Re[s] = 3/4 under the Riemann zeta function.

"So... the entire human knowledge are already encoded in zeta function."

"Hence, Riemann zeta function is probably one of the most remarkable functions because it is a concrete "representation" (in group theory sense) of "the God’s giant book of theorems" that Paul Halmost spoke of - all possible theorems and texts are already encoded in some form in Riemann zeta function, and repeated infinitely many times. Although a white noise function and an infinite sequence of random digits are also concrete "representations", Riemann zeta function is not white noise or random but well-defined.

Alternatively, from the point of view of information theory, even though Riemann zeta function is well-defined, its mappings in the right half of the critical strip are random enough to encode arbitrary large amount of information - the "entropy" of its mapping is infinite.

Example This article is also encoded somewhere in Riemann zeta function as it is being written!"

S.C. Woon, "Fractals of the Julia and Mandelbrot sets of the Riemann zeta function" (preprint 12/98)

"Computations of the Julia and Mandelbrot sets of the Riemann zeta function and observations of their properties are made. In the appendix section, a corollary of Voronin’s theorem is derived and a scale-invariant equation for the bounds in Goldbach conjecture is conjectured."

Bohm: In 1951 or there about, another interpretation where I said that the electron is a particle for example and than it has a quantum field represented mathematically by its wavefunction. And this field and the particle are together and they … the properties, the quantum properties of the electron.

It is a new kind of field. We now classicly have many fields like the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field for example… like it spread through space. The elecric field makes radiowaves radiating through space.

The quantum field is different, it has some similarities but it is different, because the effect of the quantum field depends only on the form and not on the intensity.

If you think of a waterwave, it is spreading out, the core … the more it spreads out the less the core …

Now the quantum field would be capable of, sometimes, of spreading out the electron of far away move with the same energy of move close. This would be the kind of information of a discrete quantum process.

Interviewer: So you have a field that does not drop off?

Bohm: The field drops off, but its effect does not. The effect only depends on the form, not on the intensity.

Interviewer: That is weird!

Bohm: That is not so weird. In fact it is very common, but we generally don’t pay attention to it.
If you take for example a radio wave. Its effect falls of. Now imagine a ship, guided by radar on an automatic pilot. The guidance does not depend on the intensity of the wave. It depends only on the form, we may say, that carries information.

I should probably point out that the mathematical terminology information field theory is not (rpt not) what I am referring to when I use the term, information fields, which I equate to Morphic fields and Morphic resonance.

Biology is the natural science that studies life and living organisms, including their physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution.

Morphic resonance is a theory; like any theory it doesn’t have to obey arbitrary rules for what a theory must contain. That would be silly. Theories can be completely original. E.g., Einstein’s theory of Relativity. That’s how we expand our knowledge. A theory does not require proof, but, like Morphic resonance, often contains evidence.

There is much evidence for Morphic resonance, if one looks. Obviously, if one doesn’t look, he will not see any evidence. 😬 The theory of Morphic resonance involves Morphic fields, which actually do not obey the physical laws of fields such as electrical fields, magnetic fields, mathematical fields, etc. - nor are they required to. Nor do all types of magnetic fields obey the same laws.

The theory of Morphic resonance does include many of the basis concepts of the field of biology listed in the first paragraph above - chemical processes, physiological mechanisms and evolution, the latter being a primary part of Sheldrake’s theory as well as memory.

From Wikipedia - The sense of hearing - The sound information from the cochlea travels via the auditory nerveto the cochlear nucleusin the brainstem. From there, the signals are projected to the inferior colliculusin the midbraintectum. The inferior colliculusintegrates auditory input with limited input from other parts of the brain and is involved in subconscious reflexes such as the auditory startle response.

The inferior colliculus in turn projects to the medial geniculate nucleus, a part of the thalamuswhere sound information is relayed to the primary auditory cortexin the temporal lobe. Sound is believed to first become consciously experienced at the primary auditory cortex. Around the primary auditory cortexlies Wernickes area, a cortical area involved in interpreting sounds that is necessary to understand spoken words.

Disturbances (such as strokeor trauma) at any of these levels can cause hearing problems, especially if the disturbance is bilateral. In some instances it can also lead to auditory hallucinationsor more complex difficulties in perceiving sound.

Obviously audio involves both physics and biology. So, I actually your contention that biology theories are irrelevant to audio is a Strawman argument, a logical fallacy.

The mathematical sciences are a group of areas of study that includes, in addition to mathematics, those academic disciplines that are primarily mathematical in nature but may not be universally considered subfields of mathematics proper.

Statistics, for example, is mathematical in its methods but grew out of scientific observations[1] which merged with inverse probability and grew through applications in the social sciences, some areas of physics and biometrics to become its own separate, though closely allied field. Computer science, computational science, data science, population genetics, operations research, control theory, cryptology, econometrics, theoretical physics, fluid mechanics, chemical reaction network theory and actuarial science are other fields that may be considered part of mathematical sciences.