Questioning the Foundations: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? Experimenter’s Free Will by Joseph Bisognano

It takes guts to tackle an assumption this thorny, and this argument needs to be heard. One assumption that I don't think we're ready to make, though, is that we have just yet "eliminated all which is impossible." I believe that answers lie outside of the realm of Kuhnian normal science, which rescue free will. In my essay I describe a possible way that free will might constrain a lab experiment, one that is best visualized using Bob Coecke's diagrammatic formalism. You are invited to read and comment...if you would freely choose to do so!

Dear Professor Bisognano,

Congratulations on a superb essay which is extremely well written and accessible to the layperson like myself. You have a common sense approach which is much appreciated and your wording seems similar to my own at times. Phrases like "Such simplicity is, however, forbidden" caught my attention. You capture the 'blind leading the blind' methodology of modern physics. I have no hesistation in awarding you a top score and hope you do very well in the competition.

Dear Prof. Bisognano,

You clearly make the case with solid arguments you make about the removal of the experimenter's free will and expansion of determinism on the full spectrum of time.

Though your ideas do not confirm as such some of my own exploration, they somewhat validate my approach which.

For instance, I have constructed a toy model, not of space-time, but of the universe. In my toy model, all physical phenomena are strictly causal. That is, they are sequences of causality dependant states. In such a model, time itself is not a physical aspect of reality but a purely relational concept which allows us to compare events with periodic and cyclic systems (clocks).

Also, the physics emerging from only two axioms behaves much like our own observable universe. At the fundamental scale, such universe is deterministic, but its determinism is not directly observable and models can only approximate its behaviour, hence must be probabilistic.

It would certainly be interesting to see where and how our respective toy models correspond.

Daniel L. Burnstein

One word ... aether:-)

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Dear Professor Bisognano

I enjoyed your essay because it very much resonates with my own conclusions that while measurement is important in practical everyday terms, one can (and should) bypass the experimenter role when making a theoretical model of the universe. Not only in QM as you show, but also concerning Einstein's SR then GR where he proposed an absolutely measureable universe (c is constant) while the universe itself, space-time, is relative. One might as well have used Lorentz' relative measurement in an absolute universe: variable c and moving frames where measuring rods- not space- contract, and clocks slow down, not time itself.

You propose a "toy model of a space-time net" and here it is, sort-of, in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory . I have used this theory as a springboard for my 7 questions of fundamental physics in my present fqxi essay. I will be honored if you give your learned feedback on both papers.

With best wishes

Vladimir

Dear Professor Bisognano

this is a very nice paper, particularly because it takes the quantum measurement problem seriously. It needs a lot more thought on my part to really get to grips with it, but two brief comments are relevant: (i) as you know from my paper, I believe that relating this kind of discussion to the different level in the hierarchy of structure is important, and (ii) there are of course various hints that quantum mechanics may behave in a time-symmetric manner under some circumstances. Either of these issues may have the capacity to impact your argument.

George Ellis

Dear Professor Bisognano,

Your conclusion "With all of space-time truly a unified whole, existing outside of the flow of time, determinism and quasi free will coexist." is a good description of the singularity and duality that we experience. Realizing that our "self" is the space-time is singularity, and thiking that our free will is separate from this space-time is duality.

Please see the essay Conscience is the cosmological constant in which i explained the absolute true singular nature of our self using the mathematical equation of zero = i = infinity.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Hello Mr Bisognano,

It is relevant about the possible convergence between the free will and the determinism , pure and simple. Of course the irrationality must be differenciated of this free will. if not we have possible stupidities.

The free will is not the probelm. The free will and its pure creativity is an important parameter , and this essential permits to have several interesting universal correlations. The determinsim, it , is a foundamental. The determinism is always the determinsim, the irrational has no place. We arrive at an important relevance considering the free critics like a free will, which can be futhermore determinsitic. The critics permits to sort so the irrational free will and the rational free will, deterministic. The deterministic free will so can be a reality. The rational critics, so, permit when we consider the experiments, irrational for example, to evitate the lost of money. It is a simple dterministic evidence. To be or not to be , that is the question ! :)

That said, the relevance is when both are unified.

Regards

Dear Joseph Bisognano,

A very well written, comprehensible and relevant essay, according to the competition judging criteria. The measurement problem is an important topic to address. You have looked at it in an interesting way. I am afraid that by removing the experimenter's free will you are substituting one problem for another worse one, ( red hat dislikes in my own essay). So it is to my mind a provocative suggestion, (other's may find it less so). IMHO it is possible to overcome the measurement problem without having the observer's behaviour fully determined. That difference of opinion over the physics and philosophical implications of your 'solution' does not alter the fact that you have expressed your ideas and arguments clearly in a thought provoking, well crafted essay. Good luck in the competition.

The problem with quantum measurement is really a question about why there is the appearance of a classical world. In this classical world there are eigenstates associated with "large N" that are stable under environmental perturbations. Quantum mechanics by itself is really fairly simple. We can describe it with linear vector spaces, operators on those spaces that are unitary and Hermitian and so forth. The problem comes with trying to get our classical or macroscopic understanding of the world, which is the physical format for most instruments, to jibe with the quantum world.

The free will of the experimenter is interpreted as the context of an experiment. In the EPR experiment the two experimenters can set their Stern-Gerlach apparatuses as they chose. Quantum mechanics does not provide this, for the eigen-basis of the quantum system is just one of an infinite number under unitary transformation. So we invoke the notion of free will, but this does not have to be so. We can well imagine a computer making the choice based on some algorithm, which could be a random number generator. If one is not happy with pseudo-randomness of algorithmic simulations of randomness one could use radioactive decay. A computer reads off a binary stream from the clicks on a Geiger counter, and this rotates the SG apparatus.. Now the reduced state of one quantum system is used to decide the context whereby another quantum system is measured.

The need for freewill might then be argued to be irrelevant. Physics that is not dependent upon such is best. The problem is that freewill is a part of consciousness, where we have little idea of what consciousness really is.

A classical eigenstate is usually the most expected amplitude in a path integral. The orbit of a planet around the sun is a path that is the most expected path if an electron were in that orbit. However, the electron would exhibit an interference of different paths. Yet as a system which has an action S = Nħ for n -- > ∞ exhibits less interference between paths which converge to the most expected path. This destruction of interferences between paths is a measure of the entanglement the system enters into with the environment. The inference phase, or equivalently the overlap phase in the off diagonal portions of the density matrix, is converted into an entanglement with the environment. The density matrix is then reduced to its diagonal probability entries. However, for the large N conversion to macroscopic or classical reality only one of those entries is physically real: the most probable amplitude defines (in most cases) the classical path.

Consciousness or free will is problematic. This is particularly in light of Libet's fMRI experiments. These demonstrated how the neural activity for engaging in motor activity that defines a choice occurs before the subject is aware of the choice or having made a choice. This suggests that what we call free will, or even the consciousness of making a choice, is some epiphenomenon of neurophysiological processes that are more deterministic.

Cheers LC

If you had free will, what would you do with it?

If I had the free will ,I will save this planet Jason with universal faith and real revolutions.:)

REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION ...

Dear Joseph Bisognano,

very well written essay with deep thoughts on the measurement problem and its different "solutions" on the market of theories.

But one has - in my opinion - to be careful to not confuse oneself with the term "consistency".

Consistency is surely needed for every scientific theory, but is it also sufficient? As long as consistency in yours and other's theories/interpretations of QM is the only difference, we have a new problem: it's a matter of personal taste which interpretation the subject prefers. And that would mean - speaking in the language of your theory - that the subject hasn't the free will to choose the "right" interpretation! So "quasi-randomness" in the acceptance/non-acceptance of theories enters the field of our deepest scientific questions!

Would this make sense to you? I see no way out of this new paradox without assuming a meta-level of nature that has some "teleology" built in to lead us (to correlate us) with the true scientific interpretation of QM! So what you've achieved by eliminating free will, is to install a teleologic sense that guids the whole universe (maybe with, maybe without free will....).

So, i can not see how you can say that

"having "...eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -And that truth is that the universe is fully determined"

is the truth - because assumptions about what's possible and what's not cannot be proven in advance, there are only verifications of possibilities allowed in this case. And for this case you need at least a practical demonstration that predicts every measurement outcome!

Hi Joseph:

A Solution to QM Measurement Paradox

I enjoyed reading your clear and well-written essay describing the QM Measurement Paradox and offering a compromise interim solution - "It appears that accepting that the experimenter's free will assumption is wrong offers a powerful foundation to move forward."

I would like to draw your attention to my posted paper - - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe" and my book - -" The Hidden Factor......" wherein I describe the following alternative approach to resolve the QM measurement paradox:

A Gravity Nullification Model is developed that describes the physics of the dynamics of the spontaneous particle decay. This model allows a mathematical description as to how a particle responds deterministically to the experimental apparatus or measurement characteristic in terms of the velocity V of the measuring frame of reference that interferes with the quantum particle being observed. The observed mass, energy, space, and time for the particle are relativistically determined by the model in terms of velocity V chosen by the Free-willed observer to observe the photon moving at the speed of light C. If V=0, the photon is stopped to provide the classical result in a Newtonian frame of reference. If V is chosen to be a higher value, then V/C determines the actual photon mass, frequency, and wavelength as shown in the attached figure 4-14 (pdf file). Thus, the results of the observation are deterministic and dependent upon the free willed choice (V of the measuring device) of the observer.

This also resolves the paradox of the Spooky Action at a Distance as follows. The photon moving at C experiences a fully dilated space and time (due to specific relativity, figure 1 in my posted paper) in its own frame of reference. Hence, a photon that is apparently broken into two subsystems remains correlated or entangled in spite of the appearance of separation experienced in the observer's frame of reference moving at V less than C.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper that also resolves many existing paradoxes and inconsistencies of QM and explains its inner workings in deterministic relativistic formulations.

Best regards

Avtar SinghAttachment #1: Waveparticle_behavior_of_a_photon.pdf

Joseph,

Citation from my article "Free will and the incomleteness of physics" published in Internet at January 30, 2010: "Usual explanation of physical laws started with word "if". If we do [some action], then we will see [some result]. But in deterministic world word "if" is senseless! Nobody can do something that is not on the unique track of the world development. In the deterministic world physics does not exist - history only exists.". Also: "Physicist makes his experiments in the places and moments written in the "main book of history". And he cannot freely repeat these experiments. He has no more freedom of experiments, than mechanical doll. Question: what is happened in the world in moments and places that are not scheduled for an observation?,- is senseless. We never will know that."

Article is at the address: http://yosefalberton.wordpress.com/article/free-will-and-the-incompleteness-of-1hm3pfkdolphw-39/

I have often thought that the Sherlock Holmes that you quote is appropriate, but I've never dared to quote it myself. The insistence on free will could be said to require classical physicists not to take the initial conditions in the past to be what they have to be to obtain (given whatever the dynamics might be) what we see now, setting up a classic straw man.

I suppose you are aware of the various attempts in the literature to take on the free will assumption, or, as it might also be called, the no-conspiracy assumption, but have chosen not to cite 't Hooft, for example, in this context. For that matter, Wolfram takes this approach in his discussion of finite automata. FWIW, you will find a discussion of this aspect in my solitary contribution to the Bell literature, "Bell inequalities for random fields", J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 (2006) 7441-7455, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/39/23/018, cond-mat/0403692, although I certainly cannot claim any precedence.

There are quite a few difficulties with *using* a conspiracy approach, the intractability of available deterministic models relative to Hilbert space models for a given set of experiments (that are only repeatable in a statistical sense) being the most awkward, IMO. One can take solace in the possibility of such models, without troubling oneself with actually constructing them.

give me the tool of money, and I will insert harmonious parameters of universal equilibriums. 1 composting at Big scale

2 vegetal multiplication

3 opimization of soils

...

101 SPHERIZATION