Paul,

Thanks again, but unfortunately you are still wrong on this matter

"So, for the science of physics, we have two knowns: a) there is an independent physical existence, b) there is alteration. Which means that it is sequence, etc, etc, etc"

On the second point of alteration, one might actually call it recursion, and I have no real difficulties with this point if its in the proper context. However, still with the first point, independent physical existence is purely an assumption, and now virtually a certainty that its not a valid one.

You really should read the book Einstein and the Poet, it really does get into the discussion and the mindset of Einstein on this topic. Did you know that he was a very religious person?!

There is a great quote on page 90:

"I think I am a religious man," said Einstein, "and no one will convince me that the world can survive with Jewish-Christian ethics."

Kind of interesting isn't it?

On page 94:

"Religion and science go together," said Einstein. "As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal - the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists." Einstein grinned, "And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean," he looked at the minister, "that he must subscribe to a creed. Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe."

However, Einstein is clear about one additional fact, on page 108:

"Do I have to repeat that I don't believe in a personal God who rewards and punishes His creatures? He did not create cosmic laws in order to override them when man asked Him to do so."

and on page 72:

"The world consists of real objects, and there are consistent laws underlying them. If we want to honor God, then let us use our reason and intellect to grasp these laws, which form the basis of a perfect mechanism."

This last point is important because it is exactly this point that is proven wrong. If although there may be consistent laws (quantum theory), the world does not consist of real objects (classical mechanics). It is absolutely fundamental to understand this point.

The problem Einstein had in finding unification is that he couldn't see past this point. For him it was a moral imperative that the world consist of objects, and this was a bias that was introduced by hardships associated with the events leading up to the holocaust, an event where Einstein states on page 96:

"I lost most of my family."

So we can begin to see that Einstein's refusal to accept quantum mechanics was likely influenced by horrible personal tragedy.

What is more interesting, is that even Einstein ultimately relents and says that objective reality is a mere assumption. On page 143 we see Einstein a young physicist who is depressed about life:

"Pat pointed to a tree. 'Can I truthfully say that that is a tree and, if so, what it means?'

'This could all be a dream,' replied Einstein, matter-of-factly. 'You may not be seeing it at all. But you have to assume something. Be proud of being the mean between macrocosm and microcosm. Stand still and marvel. Try not to become a many of success, but a man of value. Look around at how people want to get more out of life than they put in. A man of value will give more than he receives. Be creative, but make sure that what you create is not a curse for mankind.'"

Here we have from the man himself that there is a contradiction in his insistence of the material world. This is further reinforced on page 108:

"Dear Reverend, it is not a religion that teaches that man is made in the image of God - that is anthropomorphic. Man has infinite dimensions and finds God in his conscience."

So if the objective world represents Einstein's God, has not Einstein just refuted this position?

Again, there is no basis other than personal assertion that there is an objective reality. Experimentation has even validated this point, and the lead proponent of the objective world has even capitulated.

apologies...

"I think I am a religious man," said Einstein, "and no one will convince me that the world can survive with Jewish-Christian ethics."

should be: (verified)

"I think I am a religious man," said Einstein, "and no one will convince me that the world can survive without Jewish-Christian ethics."

Hal

"with the first point, independent physical existence is purely an assumption"

I suggest you do not test this assertion by standing below an avalanche! Noise, light, vibration, etc, are received by sentient organisms, ie they are not created by them. And noise, etc, are physically existent. Furthermore, they are the physical results of an interaction with other physical phenomena. Beyond that, we cannot know, because we cannot transcend our existence. Or put the other way around, one can assert anything, and it cannot be disproved, which is not science. The point is that we can only know of physical existence via the sensory systems and subsequent processing thereof, but this is not creating reality, it is enabling awareness of it. If something is there, it is there, irrespective of whether any sentient organism is aware of it, or indeed what meanings are attributed to the physical input received from it.

"On the second point of alteration, one might actually call it recursion"

There is never any form of 'repeat'. Even if the exactly the same physically existent state occurred again, it is different, because it occurred at a different point in time, at a different point in the sequence order.

On the subject of religion (or indeed any form of belief/assertion), I will say this. Our physical existence invokes the logical possibility of 'something else' (ie if A there is the logical possibility of 'not-A'). It is always only a logical possibility; by definition it cannot be known, because it is not part of the existence available. So, objectively, there is a logical possibility of anything anybody wants to assert. But that is it. Unless there is some experience based evidence, or at least a demonstrable possibility thereof based on experience, one can go no further with that assertion, from the objective perspective.

Paul

Paul,

Thanks again!

"I suggest you do not test this assertion by standing below an avalanche!"

No need to worry, these probabilities of events are relatively easy to calculate, of course if we accept physical reality and classical determinism, there is little I could do if the universe had plans for me to be under the avalanche.

Since I reject objective reality and can compute the probability of interaction relatively easy (which is a problem significantly decreased because of decoherence), then it is relatively easy to assure that I can avoid such avalanche...first of all by not doing silly things in snow covered mountainous areas.

Again, I want to revisit a point I made earlier, the world we call objective is an emergent entity. You have to understand information theory in order to get this point.

Quantum mutual information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mutual_information) is defined as:

[math]I(\rho^{ab}) = S(\rho^{a}) S(\rho^{b}) - S(\rho^{ab})[/math]

which in terms of relative entropy is:

[math]I(\rho^{ab}) = S(\rho^{ab}|| \rho^{a} \otimes \rho^{b})[/math]

As the article states:

"if we assume the two variables x and y to be uncorrelated, mutual information is the discrepancy in uncertainty resulting from this (possibly erroneous) assumption."

It is easy to assume that when we are talking about classical variables, such as position and momentum, uncertainty does not scale with the number of systems, so as more and more systems are added, mutual information increases, so the uncertainty in larger systems decreases and the system becomes more classical...e.g. the classical world emerges as we scale up with more systems.

I might even be tempted to declare it a law, but that would be an easy way out.

In any case, this is sufficient to begin discussions about how the objective world of Einstein is a world dependent all the component density matrices, and the world as we know it is an emergent property in the limit of vanishing uncertainty.

This is also best explained by understanding the relationship of Wigner's function and the Moyal equation to Liouville's equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_matrix#.22Quantum_Liouville.22.2C_Moyal.27s_equation)

As mutual information increases with the number of systems, the uncertainty decreases, this would appear as a decrease of the uncertainty (represented with h) in the equivalent classical phase space. So the classical world eventually starts to emerge in the limit of large systems. However, a priori it does not exist.

Thanks Ben,

No doubt that I tend to place a high value on the human component of physics, which leads one to want to understand physics in with its historical aspects. Einstein believed there are simple equations that can describe all of what we see in the physical world, and we have certain theories that are sufficiently abstract that show there are consistent ways to connect all of physics. The problem still comes down to one of arbitrary variables, which I believe is a result of the interplay between our concepts of discrete and continuous numbers and the nature of conservative systems.

Dualities play an important role because the lead to comparative connections. I will think on your points on generality though, thanks.

Harlan

One last comment on the alteration and recursion thing. I would agree that there are circumstances were one is not the other, especially depending on defintions, so I was perhaps hasty in my thoughts on this.

I would however argue that recursion can be a very broad concept and frequently misused because of people's narrow understanding of the idea. Recursion is fundamental to our conceptualization of QFT in the sense that we are looking at the evolution of states from one plane at infinity to another. Alteration could be interpreted as perturbation, and the interaction Hamiltonian is a perturbation of the non interaction Hamiltonian. Since most of the problems in QFT are associated with the interaction hamiltonian, and its components are associated with this notion of evolution from infinity to infinity, one can understand the relationship with recursion and the obvious self mapping.

Hal

The point is not about what recursion or any other concept means, or what theories assert, it is about what must be the fundamental nature of physical reality. The trick is to recognise that the very nature of physical existence means that only one physically existent state can occur at a time, and it must be definitive (physical existence cannot involve some form of lack of definition, that is in our inability to identify it). Then another occurs, which when compared manifests differences, ie there has been alteration. There is no future, only that which occurs next in the sequence as a function of what occurred immediately previously. There is no past, because what immediately previously existed must cease so that the successor can exist. The present (ie what exists as at any given point in time) is like the still frame in a film. It is the ultimate physical state where no alteration occurs, because if there is change, then by definition, there must be more than one physically existent state, ie it can be further differentiated.

Now, having established that, and the logical consequences, then, and only then, does one consider theories about physical reality. Not the other way around. The innate nature of physical reality determines how, and on what basis, a theory of it can be properly constructed.

Paul

Paul,

I think we are beginning to come full circle on this discussion. I believe I said before that I do not advocate for Many World's Interpretation of QM. I firmly believe that there is only one immediately observable universe that is extent at any time, and conservation laws must be respected (in fact, conservation laws are key). My point is that the whole construct is emergent from a relative relationship of seemingly seperable sections of the wave function. However, there are no objects, in a classical sense, upon which this reality is based. They are mere contrivances for convenience. They are an illusion of the mind. When writing the paper I made careful pains to make sure that I used the words quantum reality because of these points. I have no objection in making a distinction between items identified with classical physics and items associated with fairy tales, however at some level even physical objects as we conceive them are not real. It is the fact of mutual information that forces reality upon us, where invariant quantities ultimately emerge. Although these things are seemingly seperable, ultimately they are not.

Hal

"only one immediately observable universe that is extent at any time"

Yep, I remember that, but then you started talking about the mind and the lack of an objective reality! Just to make sure we are saying the same thing via that sentence, I would comment:

a) potentially observable, ie it is there but our chances of seeing it all are zero,

b) sensorially experienceable, rather than observable, ie the point relates to all forms of senses of all sentient organisms not just humans and sight,

c) the word universe which is an alternative to physical reality (or physically existent state) would need clarification in that it includes the physical phenomena received by the senses, which are physically existent in themselves and in the context of the sensory systems are a representation of what is normally referred to as reality, which is that what existed and caused the phenomena received due to an interaction

d) any given point in time, rather than just any time, in order to stress the point that in order to identify what was physically existent differentiation must be pursued until there is no 'time' left for any change to occur.

"However, there are no objects, in a classical sense, upon which this reality is based"

I agree with this, and did before, but I suspect for different reasons(?) In order for there to be physical 'presence' there must be 'objects', and by definition, these must be constituted by something (objects) that is elementary (ie not further reducible, there may be more than one type of these). However, while these 'objects' constitute the substance of physical reality, they cannot be equivalent to a physically existent state, ie what existed. Because these 'objects' have 'properties', and change occurs, they do not exist in a constant state. And in order to define physical existence, we need to identify one such state, which as I have said before is probably impossible, but that is another issue. However, I suspect that a number of 'objects', as conceived, do not actually correspond with their conceptual representation.

Paul

Paul,

Thanks,

I think we are now just getting into a discussion about semantics. If you want to define objects as being something other than billiard-ball type objects, that's fine, but we are sidetracking the point of the paper. If you want to get to a point about whether there are fundamental "anythings", then you are getting into a level or arbitrariness that is still consistent with the point of the paper and the discussion.

Because many of our logic structures are based on first order logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic), we know that such things are incomplete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic#Completeness_and_undecidability) and require the acceptence of certain statements as undecideable as to their validity. This is my mind has a closer affinity to what is fundamental, or what one might call a fundamental object in the sense that undecidability of a problem is something that must be "danced around" since it is otherwise impenetrable. However, those things are not "objectively real" in a physical sense.

However, stating that there is one observable manifestation of the universe, and that there need to be some sort of "physical objects" upon which it is based has been verified as false. Again, all we can really deal with is observations of events, and the probability of seeing an event. If in thise discussion we want to say "events are fundamental objects", well that's just an arbitrary choice we make.

Hal

Yes, we can only start with "observations of events", because that is the end product of the sensory process, which is the mechanism through which we can effect an independent awareness of reality. And indeed, because observation (or more generally, sensing) is fraught with practical problems, many times it will have to be an estimate as to what could have been sensed had we been able to do so. But there is only one physical reality to be sensed, its occurrence does not involve any indefiniteness, and it can only be in one physically existent state at a time. Otherwise we would have sensed bizarre effects and sheer anarchy by now. We do not create reality through sensing, it is independent of that.

On the paragraph on logic. Remember, we exist, we are part of reality, so we are trapped in an existentially closed system. Reality is not an abstract concept. Thus one needs to establish how that is constituted and what, then, is objectivity within that confine. These notions of proof, etc, are otherwise nonsense if that differentiation is not invoked first. For example: I can just assert that reality is a shoot-em up game run by little green men with 6 heads. This cannot be disproved. It only causes an immediate impression of being 'wrong' because of the superficial 'ludicrousness' of the proposition. But the real test of validity, of this or any other proposition, is whether there is any form of experienceable evidence (preferably validated direct experience, otherwise inference from that) to substantiate it.

I agree, and did so at the start, that this (convenient) conceptualisation of what constitute the basic 'stuff' of reality as 'billiard ball' like is possibly incorrect.

Paul

7 days later

Dear Hal,

I have read your paper with great interest. I think you are right. To understand the universe more deeply we have to abandon objective realism in favour of quantum reality.

One of the most strong theoretical foundation of objective realism is certainly special relativity which became inseparable part of quantum field theory.

I never believed in Einstein's position that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. Instead of that I was convinced that special relativity itself was somehow incomplete.

To identify this incompleteness of special relativity I applied quantum mechanical concepts, like the wave-particle-duality, to the axiomatic core of Einstein's theory.

Finally following idea came up: If light has two faces, a wave-like face and a particle-like face, it seems quite natural to assume, that the speed of light c has two faces as well.

If this concept of a »Dual Parametrization of c« is consciously applied to special relativity, we can easily recognize, that Einstein's theory is essentially incomplete, because only the wave-like face of c referenced by its second postulate is taken into account, whereas no reference to a particle-like face of c can be found.

This idea of a Dual Parametrization gives us - as conceived by me - the possibility to get a thorough understanding of quantum reality as you have called for at the end of your essay.

Good Luck for Your Paper

Kind Regards

Helmut

Hello Hal,

I enjoyed your essay, but I disagree. You say that "classical objective reality must be replaced by quantum reality as the framework for understanding the universe." I think that to assume either would be a major mistake.

What we have in front of us is an unsolved puzzle, or several. To me, by far the most common mistake in both physics and philosophy is to assume we have all the pieces of the jigsaw in front of us, and then to draw conclusions from looking at them. Instead, it's essential to allow for the existence of missing pieces, and use reasoning to deduce what we can about what these missing pieces might look like. That's what my essay is about - looking at the clues we have, to guess what the clues we don't yet have look like.

I think if you fail to suspend judgement in the present situation, you risk making the kind of false assumptions that the purpose of this whole discussion is to prevent.

Let me point out one general overview-type clue, about the subject of your essay. The two main theories, GR and QT, both have trouble with the reality of what they're describing - but in entirely different ways. This is extremely interesting, and suggests these problems may disappear in the future. But admitting that we don't yet know is absolutely essential. We're simply not in a position to do anything else.

To me, non-locality is unavoidable, and David Z Albert has argued that it applies in any possible interpretation of Bell's work, with Aspect's confirmation. You say:

"However, since no local version of classical mechanics can explain the outcomes of quantum experiments, and admitting non-locality would completely contradict the results of relativity in classical experiments, one is left with the conclusion of local quantum mechanics as being the correct and only option over any non-local classical alternative."

You seem to imply that it has to be one or the other. The correct conclusion is, particularly in the light of the potential conflicts between SR and QT, that we don't yet know what's going on.

Best wishes, Jonathan Kerr

5 days later

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Harlan,

I did read your reply immediately, but I was probably interrupted by kids or other intrusions, and didn't realize until logging some final votes that I must not have clicked send on any response I had written.

I wanted to thank you for your detailed reply and clarification. I also reread your reply to Ben Dribus, and appreciate your historical perspective on such matters as very helpful. I understand now the distinction that you made that "it really is a nothing or everything choice between classical mechanics or quantum reality," and do feel that is an important distinction which often leads otherwise very logical and rational people to leap from strong mathematics to very sloppy ontological interpretations of the mathematics.

Good luck in the end game here and I hope to read more of your work in the future.

Dean

To all commenters I wanted to say thank you for the comments, I apologize that I have not responded to every comment as other priorities took precedence. At any rate, physics should never be a popularity contest, but I do appreciate that time spent participating is important in the modern world of physics. Thanks again for the thoughtfulness of the comments, physics is a great adventure and this has been a worthwhile excursion!

Paul,

Since we had a very good and long dialogue, I wanted to say thanks for the discussion. Apologies that I haven't replied with further discussion, but thanks for the comments, it was good to have this exchange! When the opportunity next arises I will definitely look forward to your comments!