This paper starts with a personal memoir of how some significant ideas arose and events took place during the period from 1972, when I first encountered Ted Bastin, to 1979, when I proposed the foundation of ANPA. I then discuss program universe, the fine structure paper and its rejection, the quantitative results up to ANPA 17 and take a new look at the handydandy formula. Following this historical material is a first pass at establishing new foundations for bit-string physics. An abstract model for a laboratory notebook and an historical record are developed, culminating in the bit-string representation. I set up a tic-toc laboratory with two synchronized clocks and show how this can be used to analyze arbitrary incoming data.This allows me to discuss (briefly) finite and discrete Lorentz transformations, commutation relations, and scattering theory. Earlier work on conservation laws in 3-and 4-events and the free space Dirac and Maxwell equations is cited. The paper concludes with a discussion of the quantum gravity problem from our point of view and speculations about how a bit-string theory of strong, electromagnetic, weak and gravitational unification could take shape.
Revised and considerably extended version of two invited lectures presented at the18th annual international meeting of the
ALTRNATIVE NATURAL PHILOSOPHY ASSOCIATIONWesley House, Cambridge, England, September 4-7, 1996 * Work supported by Department of Energy contract DE-AC03-76SF00515. † Conference Proceedings, entitled Merologies, will be available from ANPA c/o Prof.C.W.Kilmister, Red TilesCottage, Hight Street, Bascombe, Lewes, BN8 5DH, United Kingdom.1 Pre-ANPA IDEAS: A personal memoir
First EncountersWhen I first met Ted Bastin in 1972 and heard of the Combinatorial Hierarchy (hereinafter CH), my immediate reaction was that it must be dangerous nonsense. Nonsense, because the two numbers computed to reasonable accuracy -137 ≈hc/e 2 and 2 127 + 136 ≈hc/Gm 2 p -are empirically determined, according to conventional wisdom. Dangerous, because the idea that one can gain insight into the physical world by "pure thought" without empirical input struck me then (and still strikes me) as subversive of the fundamental Enlightenment rationality which was so hard won, and which is proving to be all too fragile in the "new age" environment that the approach to the end of the millennium seems to encourage [84,86].Consequently when Ted came back to Stanford the next year (1973)[8], I made sure to be at his seminar so as to raise the point about empirical input with as much force as I could. Despite my bias, I was struck from the start of his talk by his obvious sanity, and by a remark he made early on (but has since forgotten) to the effect that the basic quantization is the quantization of mass. When his presentation came around to the two "empirical" numbers, I was struck by the thought that some time ago Dyson[19] had proved that if one calculates perturbative QED up to the approximation in which 137 electron-positron pairs can be presen...