Recognising Top-Down Causation by George F. R. Ellis

Dear George Ellis,

yesterday evening i watched your fqxi talk about existence on youtube (Copenhagen meeting). I am impressed by your deep and tough-minded manner of analyzing and argumenting against some approaches that claim to have solved the problem of time and the problem of causality in QM.

I now read your latest paper "Space time and the passage of time" and it confirms my impression of your working style and the results you achieved.

Because my own interests concerning the fundamentals of physics lie on the problem of causality in QM, QM's different interpretations and the role time could play within those frameworks, allow me to make some remarks on the issue from my point of view:

For me, the interpretation of the time-dependent (but also the time-independent) Schrödinger equation as a real QM-physical wave-dynamics is a tricky illusion. From my point of view, the interpretation of this wave-function is such, that it only can be interpreted as an indicator for the existence of a new principle: namely the principle that QM always renders the past consistent with what takes place in the present (with present i mean every measurement/interaction that fixes the former future possiblities into a definite single result). In this sense, QM, in my opinion, is able to change past facts ("physical retrodiction"), for example measurement devices (like double-slit apertures and so on), to be consistent with for example delayed choices in delayed choice experiments. So every physical hints/marks are rendered to be consistent with the former unknown future that was given by the uncertainty of QM as well as by the uncertainty of the possible future events that may take place in the macro-realm.

For me, this all does mean that the Schrödingers wave-function, if at all existent in some physical sense, does collapse, because it cannot be continued in the new context (with context i mean the change of past facts, enabled at the time of an interaction via entanglement of a physical device with a certain other device that was yet unknown at the time a "particle" was entangled with the first device). The Schrödingers wave-function cannot be continued in the new context, because at the moment the system gets decoupled from entanglement, the causal context has changed and the wave-function, interpreted as deterministic, makes no more sense to be continued. So, we now need a new wave-function to further describe the system's possible evolution until a new interaction/measurement occurs ... and so on.

What my proposal/interpretation really does, is to show that QM could "mimic" causality via intermediate steps of instantaneous information transfers between the "deterministic evolution" of the "wave-function" (surely with the help of a yet unknown "principle" *what choice* is to make is best and due to what criteria - surely a criteria that has something to do with achieving the macrocosmical causal consistence).

In my framework, this mechanism of "mimicing a strict determinism" has a cause - and therefore is causal - even though in a different sense than we usually use the word "causal". Usually we think of this word as a whole chain of strictly deterministic events and at the end we arrive at paradox results, like for example time-symmetry in QM, or the future that partially influences the present, or that our brain's single steps and our thoughts are fundamentally pre-determined and so on.

I argue that non of those paradoxes are neccessary.

For example, in my approach the time-symmetry of QM is just an illusion, because we interpret the wave-function *without* taking entanglement into account. Surely, the many-worlds interpretation (Everett-style) does take entanglement into account, but the price of this interpretation is that it leads itself ad absurdum by assuming a strict determinism that at the same time can (must?) serve as a way out of the non-locality trap. By asssuming a strict determinism, the doors to some adeventuresome conspiracy-theory is opened. Surely, the MW-interpretation not neccessarily incorporates a conspiracy in reference to - for example - the EPR-results and Bell's theorem (because the MW-interpretation does not deny entanglement). But another adeventuresome conspiracy occurs: namely why we humans can come to consistent insights about nature's behaviour if there is overall determinism in nature? To consistently explain that we are nonetheless able to realize that logics and the behaviour of nature have some huge intersection and are consistent/coherent in many regards, one really has to assume very, very special initial conditions at the beginning of our universe. But that would indicate that QM-probabilities must be in fact interpreted as physical (or meta-physical) ingredients enabling the permanent consistency of the whole universe/multiverse.

So, what i have done with my interpretation (in my humble opinion) is to eliminate the multiverse in favour of multiple "particle"-interactions that allow a non-deterministic view of the future which is open, allow to explain the need and purpose of entanglement for this task, explain why the "wave-function" *must* "collapse" (if it shoulc be at all physically existent and not merely a false interpreted mathematical statement) and to show why time does really flow and why time and space are emergent features/results of QM-acitvities.

I would be very happy if you could take a look at my own essay and at the same time i want to apologize for predominantely writing about my own work here. I read your essay very properly and also your arxiv paper mentioned above and after having watched your talk i simply was excited about your lines of reasoning that seem - at least for me at this point in time - to be very similar to my own ones.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Professor Ellis,

First, I'd like to note that the idea that both bottom up and top down causation (in the sense you defined it, which seems adequate to me) are necessary to tell the whole story about causal interactions seems so obvious to me that I am rather surprised that anyone would seriously debate it.

What I would be interested to know is whether you have considered that dimensionality may itself play an as yet recognized role in top down causation. More specifically I mean this: What if the dimensions that characterize our reality are emergent, with some coarse (and as yet to be precisely defined) correlation with scale? Then it would seem to me that possibly the largest scale phenomena for which we have difficulty finding an adequate explanation may also be unrecognized top-down effects, in effect manifestations of events that must be properly explained within a higher dimensional analog.

I realize that this sounds rather vague, and that is partly because I don't yet know enough about cosmology, but I have focused in my work in the opposite direction. It turns out that when one attempts to represent an object in a higher-dimensional space, then it exhibits two phenomena which one finds in (and to some extent define) quantum mechanics: superposition and collapse.

The "superposition" in this case is due to the fact that any property of the lower-dimensional object which requires for its expression the same number of dimensions as the space in which it is represented must take into account all of the possible values for the dimension that the object lacks. The "collapse" in this case is due to the fact that if one "attributes" to the object extent along the dimensions it lacks, then it is no longer necessary to take into account all of the values, the superposition reduces to the representation of the property which has just the value due to the attribute extent.

(I apologize for this awkward wording, it comes about because I am trying to express this in the greatest generality. My submission to this contest contains a simple and I believe very accessible illustration of this idea.)

In any event, if this is what lies behind quantum mechanics (i.e. that we are "observing" prior to a "measurement" objects that exist in a lower-dimensional analog of spacetime) is it not possible that at the other extreme of scale a similar process might lead to phenomena we cannot adequately describe using our theories which hold strictly for spacetime events? If so, then dark energy and possibly dark matter may be the top-down phenomena par excellence.

I enjoyed your carefully crafted essay and am glad that you chose to participate.

Sincerely.

Armin

Dear George Ellis,

thank you so much.

I think your approach to take adaptive selection seriously is as promising as it is important. Selection mechanisms do cover all parts of science, biology and - meaningfully! - also human cognition (assumptions taken for granted, the working of our senses etc.), statistics and so on.

Your elaboration on that helped me to remind me how important the principle of selection is and how easy at the other side it is to understand/contemplate it - but also to forget it!

You stated in your talk mentioned by me above that in our dreaming states we incorporate what is important for us to know/to incorporate. What's important is not conscious, but unconscious. This is very interesting in my opinion, because everyday logics seems to say, what is important has to be all the time present in our consciousness.

Well, in my opinion, what really has to be all the time present in our consciousness, should be the fact that human minds permanentely do select assumptions in favour of others and built their world around them. This happens in society as well as in science.

The principle of adaptive selection, as you explained it, in my opinion, is surely more than an assumption. It does reflect the coherence of the external and internal world of human beings. The fact that adaptive selection does play a key role in so many branches of science is meaningfull at its own right - in my opinion.

Again, concratulations to your current essay as well as to your arXiv-papers which i enjoyed very much!

Best wishes,

Stefan

I see on your thread that other people believe you caused a major decline in their rankings by giving them a low score.

Did you do the same to me?

George Ellis

Dear Armin

Thanks for the nice comments.

You say "possibly the largest scale phenomena for which we have difficulty finding an adequate explanation may also be unrecognized top-down effects, in effect manifestations of events that must be properly explained within a higher dimensional analog." I probably agree with that if you have a fibre bundle over spacetime in mind; otherwise nit so sure about it. The problem is that dimensions are discrete: it's a big notch going down a dimension.

You state the following: " The "collapse" in this case is due to the fact that if one "attributes" to the object extent along the dimensions it lacks, then it is no longer necessary to take into account all of the values, the superposition reduces to the representation of the property which has just the value due to the attribute extent. " Sounds just like the idea of adaptive selection (see the post above at Oct. 3, 2012 @ 04:44 GMT). Seems concordant with this.

Best wishes

George Ellis

Hi George:

Your description of science's true goal is very limited and underestimated. It is not merely to understand the mechanisms whereby physical things work (the natural sciences) and how livings beings exist and function (the life sciences), but also to understand how the universe (beyond matter) works and how the human mind and consciousness work. Once these are understood, the wholesome science will be able to naturally provide meaning and purpose to the universe and life in it.

Because of the underestimation of science's true capability, the mainstream has imprisoned itself into the vicious circle of material-only theoretical and testing pursuits leading to inconsistencies, singularities, and irresolvable paradoxes (QM & GR) that leave 96% of the universe unexplained with a virtual dead-end. The ultimate test of any theory is its universal, and not just worldly, prediction. Experiences with QM and GR show that even countless worldly experiments or observations are no guarantee of their universal validation.

Further, an operational framework of the Top-down approach would remain undefinable until the "Top" is describable in true scientific terms. The "Top" here means the ultimate universal reality or Cosmic Consciousness or Free Will thru which everything emerges or into which everything merges. We cannot a priory underestimate science's capability in describing the holistic Top-down (Holistic) approach that would naturally reveal purpose and meaning to the universe and life in it.

However, if this is not understood as the true goal of science, we would promote demeaning of science by default.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Mr. George Ellis,

I found your essay very late, so I please you that you give opinions about my essay, although it is end of the contest.

You wrote that cosmological time arrow is top-down effect. This is also my idea, written in my article, section 6.

I agree also that the mach principle exists, thus that Newton's bucket can be explained.

I suggest also conscious decisions. They are also top-down causation.

Similar ideas of top-down causation were written also by Mrs. Walker on this forum.

Best regards, Janko Kokosar

Hello Mr Singh, It is a message of wisdom.

I beleive that the crisis can be solved in centralizing the competences. But if and only if the universal determinism is the torch of researchs and studies. The sciences, rational and foundamental have the solutions, so why?

is it a probelm of hormons and unconsciousness due to this papper governing our lifes. The equilibriums can be reached if we act globally in a pure spherization of all spheres. The social high spheres also can be optimized with wisdom.

I see the universal consciousness , complex and simple.If we take this infinite light above our walls, without motion. and if we consider that this infite consciousness so has created a physical sphere with spheres of light in motion becoming mass due to their intrinsic codes. So this universal sphere is like a project.Our physical consciousness evolves , like babies of this phsyical 3D sphere and its intrinsic quantum spheres and cosmological spheres.

I agree indeed, it lacks in the high spheres this universal consciousness.Perhaps it is due to our young age at this universal scale.13.7 to 15 billions years, it is young still.I beleive that the hour is serious and that it is time to act in a pure universal way globally speaking. The earth is near an add of several possible chaotical exponentials. I ask me how it is possible knowing our potential of resolution of major probelms. I don't understand the human nature. It is bizare. We have the solutions and we do not put them into practice. How is it possible ?

You know Mr Singh, I beleive simply that the most important is to be universal and determinsitic and foundamental respecting our universal physical laws. We have so many tools around us. The solutions, global exist.

The consciousness indeed is an important parameter.It is even an essential when we play with this entire universal enrgy, this entropy present in all things at its maximaum paradoxal. Just a part is sufficient. This entropy is even infinite when we unify both of system, the physical sphere and its spheres and the pure light infinite above our walls. The aether is this entropy. The free will more this consciousness give harmonious parameters of spherization instead of chaotical parameters.

Thankig you Mr Singh

Regards

Mr. Ellis how can you use the pieces or detached observations to explain the totality regarding causation?... to understand the whole, one must consider the whole? right or wrong?

It seems like a central issue in the Top Down view would be the Necessity of particular Building Blocks with specific properties - not just the possibility, so the Top Down can match the Bottom Up - without any 'coupling constants' to fiddle with. Perhaps the universe just seems to be 'finely tuned' because of the way equations are defined. And QM ignores the expansion of the universe anyway, and that curious seeming fact that Photons lose energy in expansion, but fermions do not lose their rest energy, and Hydrogen remains invariant. Which makes me wonder why there is so much emphasis on Quantum Gravity rather than the simpler problem of uniform expansion. Einstein describes it rather than explaining how it is possible. It probably can not be explained geometrically, but needs details of what the vacuum actually is - without the 'useful simplifications' like a background space. Perhaps one possibility is that relationships of elementary oscillator objects given by a direct product already include spacetime relations, as if the direct product has a 'lifetime' and then disappears, and thus bulk spacetime is being continually recreated.

Hi George,

I read the Coveney and Highfield book when it first came out, and I just pulled it from the shelf for another read, on your recommendation. I note the year of publication is 1990, which reminded me of another favorite from that year, Kafatos and Nadeau, *The Conscious Universe* (the revision in 2000 was even better). I think interdisciplinary research that has hovered strongly in the background for a couple of decades is ready to flower.

Best,

Tom

thanks.. Thomas,seem to me the universe is potential form that changeable, and not be understood well by us Prof Ellis?