Dear Armin, thank you for your interest!

"It appears to me that we have different perspectives on what might constitute a most fundamental description of nature."

With realism being questionable, the fundamental description describes itself rather than a presupposed reality (see introduction). "Nature" must emerge in that description. This is more fundamental than whether there is black hole holography in a universe [not "world"(!)] or in all possible ones. If the latter, it will be obvious from the fundamental description. What I am talking about cannot be any other way, not because of nature but because of the fact that the fundamental description is a *description*.

"from my perspective it is not so "by definition" because you first need to specify what you mean by "fundamental theory of nature""

Did I even use "of nature"? (That would be a mistake.) If my definitions are inconsistent, please tell us how so. As far as I can see, it is "by definition", because I defined it that way.

"Yes but phase space is totally different from Hilbert space."

I did not write about Hilbert space. If there are non-linearities, Hilbert space is in trouble.

"your principles risk becoming either internally inconsistent or vacuous."

The most important insights, for example the "eliminativism" of D. Dennett, are refused as vacuous, as I explicitly wrote (introduction). Tautologies are empirically empty. Consistency is important.

"Allow me to express skepticism at the idea that adding one counter-intuitive idea to another in the manner you describe makes the whole more intuitive"

Special relativity as introduced via Minkowski diagrams and stressing the light cone structure, i.e. the fact that it reflects tautological modal realism, which just like special relativity does, also includes all possible determined pasts (worlds) of observers, is very intuitive.

"I did not come away with a clear idea of what Wheeler's idea was"

He did not have that idea, he predicted that there must be one. The idea is in the conclusion where it refers to the previous paragraphs by number (I believe it was paragraphs 10 and 13).

I hope this helps. [BTW, I allowed myself to put your comment also on my science2.0 column. It may get very crowded here with total nonsense from certain extremely unpleasant people that Perimeter Institute kicked out and Oxford University also refuses to have any affiliation with (see above). This repels many serious people, but on my column, your comments will be read]

Sorry, thought I was still logged in.

Tom

  • [deleted]

  • Post #21

Dear Professor Vongehr,

I just visited your column. While I don't mind that you put my comment there, I think it will be inevitable before one of your regular readers googles my name and as a result will find something about me that they will notify you about, and I'd prefer you find out from me.

About 10 years ago, as I was preparing to pursue a master in public health degree, having already graduated from pharmacy school, I had an epiphany about a fundamental aspect of nature. Physics not being my field, I hesitated to do anything about this, but after some time I realized that I had a strong inner urge to find out whether the insight from that epiphany had any merit or not.

I broke off my MPH studies halfway and decided to learn physics. Because some of the initial glimpses of what I was beginning to understand about quantum mechanism seemed to match the insight, I became very enthusiastic. In a fit of overactive enthusiasm, I applied to the JREF Million Dollar challenge, claiming that I had an epiphany which would transform our understanding of quantum mechanics. Because I do not know the "cause" of my epiphany, and frankly do not believe in supernatural phenomena, I framed my claim in accordance with my convictions by saying that it would be less likely for a layperson with no prior training to have such a fundamental insight than for a genuine psychic event to occur. In order to not be disqualified from the challenge, however, I expressed this very subtly.

Given that you appear to hold the JREF in very high esteem, having founded your own quantum version of their challenge (which, BTW I believe is impossible to beat), I think it is fair for me to believe that this new information will strongly color your perception of me and make it more likely for you to discount anything else I say.

However, I request that you hear the rest of the story.

At the time, none of the applications were online, that came later. While I was not happy when they did post my application without my consent or permission and prefaced it by calling me "psychic Einstein", I decided to ignore them and continue with my studies. I continued to take almost all the courses a physics major would take (on a part-time basis) as well as additional philosophy of physics and mathematics courses at the University of Michigan, while working full-time as a pharmacist.

Seriously studying physics can be a humbling experience. However, I was determined to honestly try to find out if what I seemed to have stumbled upon had any merit. In particular, I was ready to admit any mistake I had made, and unfortunately I made lots of them. The upside of making a mistake, however, is that one can learn from it, and as a result, one knows more than before the mistake was made.

Last year, I finally felt ready (after 7 years) to make the details of my idea public. I already had ongoing discussions with a couple of my professors (one in the physics and the other in the philosophy department) and after they understood the details of my idea they gave me permission to deposit the relevant papers in Deep Blue, the University of Michigan's repository.

I have since participated in some conferences, and observed that the JREF's action appears to be seriously hurting my efforts to achieve a meaningful scientific exchange with others. For instance, I participated last year at a conference at Perimeter, giving a poster presentation about my framework, and by the second day, the JREF's post upon googling my name jumped from 13th to 1st position, and I could tell that people were avoiding me. Also, when I sent in my paper for publication, the chief editor, no doubt having googled me after seeing some unorthodox ideas in the paper, felt fit to write me back saying that I did not understand quantum mechanics.

Before you write me off as a crackpot or a delusional person, too, I'd like to ask that you consider the evidence, which you can check for yourself:

-I have never compared myself to Einstein, they did. I only claimed that I had an epiphany, which I truthfully did, and it has changed the course of my life

-My actual claim does not contain a psychic claim but a comparison of the likelihood of what happened to me to an actual psychic event (but of course, after one sees "psychic Einstein" who is going to check?)

-Finally, the content of my idea. Before you make any judgement about its merit, why not examine the evidence? 3 months ago, I gave a talk about my framework at the Vaxjo conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics in which I attempted to give an overview and I believe this is the best way to familiarize someone who knows nothing about it. You will find that the central idea is so simple that a layperson with no knowledge about quantum mechanics could have stumbled on it (although that was not my initial epiphany, however it directly led to that central idea). And if during the talk I said anything that contradicts our current knowledge about quantum mechanics, I will be the first to admit that I was mistaken.

You can find the talk here: http://youtu.be/GurBISsM3

I have throughout the entire time I have been studying physics been eager to be honest with myself and readily admit when I make a mistake. I believe this is what distinguishes what many call a 'crackpot' from somebody who is pursuing an unorthodox idea in a scientific fashion. I believe that even someone in academia can be a crackpot if they refuse to admit that they have made a mistake in their endeavor.

I believe I can say that my professors know me as a hardworking and serious but also very curious student and hope you take the evidence I presented into account before judging me.

Armin

Interesting comment by somebody who personally got a drawing from Wheeler about what may be the utterly simple idea, perhaps reformulated by Anton Zeilinger: First Hand Account

The essay contains both via rejection of actualization and emergent indeterminism [Item (7)], respectively, thus they are not yet the "utterly simple idea" that demands the core of QM: My Reply

Sascha, if you really are interested in engaging on Wittgenstein's role in the philosophy of logic and mathematics with one who understands it -- I will be more than happy to accommodate. Wittgenstein plays no significant role in the philosophy of science, however, and I challenge you to produce one credible source that successfully argues so.

As it is, you lay false premise upon false premise, to reach your false conclusions. For example, "I say that the alternatives (worlds) physically match up (one Alice per Bob) and that this is the 'interaction' between alternatives (worlds) that is the very core of QM." No, that is the core of your belief about what is at the core of QM. There is no physical interaction among alternative worlds, else there would be no reason to label them "alternative."

The physics core of QM is quite simple and straightforward: A continuously variable classical quantity, such as angular momentum, is observed to take discrete measured values restricted to simple rational numbers.

You want a real debate, or not?

Tom

    Dear Readers!

    After analyzing your comments below, I decided against a FAQ for now and rather write several articles. The essay contest is about what basic physical assumption is wrong, but having the essay therefore focus on what is wrong (physical actualization of future) obscures somewhat the derivation. Thus, many commentators focused on the mere tautological start, which is admittedly not sufficient to arrive at Wheeler's "utterly simple idea". The following article summarizes the 'tautological modal realism to QM' steps super succinctly and then explains the indeterminism that is vital to get Everett relativity from Einstein relativity via turning around Popper's proof:

    Emergent Indeterminism Comes Before Quantum Mechanics

    Thank you for your comments

    Sascha

    Sascha, there is actually *nothing* in Wittgenstein's philosophy that would allow you to arrive at Wheeler's "utterly simple idea," because in Wittgenstein there is no physics. Wheeler, OTOH, is all about physics.

    Tom

    Wittgenstein's role is ever more re-appreciated, see for example the pioneers of Relational Quantum Mechanics that resolved EPR (citations in the essay). One needs to understand the core of Wittgenstein, not focus on his choice of words at the time or suchlike. I will explain this once more differently in the follow-up article to Indeterminism Comes Before QM.

    The core of QM is neither mere quantization (such can be topological), nor uncertainty (uncertainty can even emerge from hot classical Einstein-ethers), but strictly the correlations, like for example the Bell inequality violating ones, that are stronger than classically possible (simply because classically, alternatives are "dead"; they simply do not "interact" because they do not "exist").

    What you write here, namely that the core is a "continuously variable classical quantity, such as angular momentum, ..." is obviously neither Wheeler's "utterly simple idea that *demands* the quantum" (since you merely postulate quantization), nor is it clear that such cannot emerge from a classical substrate, nor can you seriously hold the opinion that the most fundamental and natural description of QM starts by first assuming classical continuous stuff. Classical physics emerges from QM, not the other way around.

    Thank you for your comment

    Sascha

    • [deleted]

    • Post #28

    Sasha

    I would like to show

    old essay http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

    essay for this contest

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

    Two persons inspired me for this work

    1.Ludwig Wittgenstein

    2.John Wheeler

    "Classical physics emerges from QM, not the other way around."

    Of course, you cannot support this statement in any objective way. EPR-Bell is by strictly classical parameters, for one thing -- and for another, so are Wheeler's ideas. What the experimental violation of Bell's inequality explicitly shows, is that classical physics *cannot* emerge from quantum mechanical rules.

    Problem is, you are so convinced that physic is an observer-created -- as opposed to observer-participatory, which is Wheeler's interpretation of the covariance inherent in relativity -- that you ignore the physics entirely, in favor of the language analysis that attends anti-rationalist philosophy.

    Tom

    Correcting my grammar: " ... physics is observer-created, as opposed to ..."

    4 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #31

    Dear Sascha Vongehr,

    I am fascinated with how close our views are on some fundamental aspects. I may not agree with every aspect of your views and interpretations about QM, but our main motivations and ideals are the same. I've been precisely discussing on the relevance of language for physics and the importance of the meaning you associate to your worlds. I also firmly believe that QM is that fundamental, and on this domain language plays a major role.

    I deeply agree that the expressiveness of our language dictates what we can describe and also with Wittgenstein's similar statement. Actually, I say almost the same thing on my essay. Your Idea that most of fundamental statements are not even wrong but meaningless is also something we share in common. In fact, I defend the thesis that the fundamental theories defines (for a subset of natural language ) which statements are or not meaningful. In my essay I argue that the interpretation of a theory should connect the math of the theory with the language, and so, a meaningful statement is one we can translate into a mathematical statement.

    I really think that our fundamental theories are not simply right or wrong, but that they really make sense or not. I agree that most of the problems at this level are actually because there are meaningless statements. Your ideas helped me understanding mines. If we could simply state with clarity most of this fundamental problems, the problem would be dissolved. The notion of closed theory I discuss on my essay

    The Final Theory and the Language of Physics,

    is deeply related with your notion of tautological logic where our fundamental theories are. I believe it can give you new insights.

    I also think that there is a new paradigm and language that makes quantum mechanics natural, and I refer to this as the worldview that makes quantum theory understandable.

    Best regards,

    Frederico

      Yes, indeed, there are similarities between our views. Your essay suffers more severely from the problem that my essay also has, and that all on-topic essays here must have, because the contest specifically asks to write about the wrong, which is fundamentally the meaningless, therefore we are forced to write precisely about what Wittgenstein taught us to be silent about. I was accutely aware of this and spend a darn long time to revise over and over and over again in order to be meaningful nevertheless.

      I suggest: Forget about the wrong, toss it all out, and provide what you call a closed theory. I know, it is hard; academic constraints force us to take sides in the ontic vs. epistemic debate or at least discuss that in order to preempt reviewers' complaints about that one is not aware of the "relevant" literature (instead of simply not confusing with the irrelevant). But life is short, so I encourage you. Keep me updated.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #33

      That is precisely what I think, but as you said clearly, there are several constraints. I've been trying to provide a closed theory, but then If I don't enter into this epistemic-ontic debate they say that I'm not aware of the literature or that I'm not doing something new. For me this debate is really irrelevant, if not meaningless. You may find my arXiv paper interesting, "On the nature of reality". And you may realize that it contains some of Wittgenstein's ideas.

      You can express with clarity something I believe is the greatest problem of contemporary fundamental physics. But your point is often overlooked. But it is time to change this. I hope we could keep sharing ideas. We have close views, and the relevance of my work is related with how many people can see the importance of your ideas.

      Best Regards

      I had a look at your arXiv paper already before I wrote the comment above, and my criticism was at both. Nobody has time to read carefully, so if you on top write much about what is wrong, your own description cannot be noticed. "On the nature of reality" is not a title I would usually look at either. If you truly think you "get it", act it. You would not write a title like that if you refused the meaningless. Simply construct your closed description, do not defend against the meaningless, proceed until you have a novel result of which you are sure it is not just a crackpot's rabbit hole. Don't let the fear of competition pressure you down a rabbit hole. If you really "get it", you already know there is little competition, because anything that even potentially smells "postmodern" is so utterly refused by physicists and philosophers of physics, even the anti-realist ones, you can leisurely walk and still be first to discover some of what waits on the next level (if being first among 10^9 primates who don't give a moist rodent's posterior is a desire you suffer from - a common affliction among us).

      So you suggest I should simply write my closed theory and do not discuss what is wrong or meaningless? And what kind of title do you suggest? And why people will use my theory if they cannot see what is wrong (or meaningless) on the old theories? That's my problem. I believe I have the solution, but I think most cannot see the problem it solves.

      Thanks for your feedback. Your opinions may be very helpful.

      "And why people will use my theory if they cannot see what is wrong (or meaningless) on the old theories?"

      Because they simply see that it is useful if you make it useful, and after that they may rationalize automatically that the old theories are somehow wrong even if they never really see why. All else not only fails due to humans' time constraints and evolved nature as believers and selective perceivers and suppreme rationalizers, but also wastes your own time on defending against what will likely go away anyway. Look - admiting error is almost pathological given the natural selection of defensive supporting of one's own ideas, but there is a young generation of basically already technology enhanced kids already integrating into virtual reality. It may well just take another ten years and they are the new scientists and find your ideas self-evident. By then you either are still discussing endlessly with the old guys or you have developed something the new guys really appreciate.

      9 days later

      Dear Prof Vongehr,

      As a follower of Scientific Blogging, I read also your "Help Create The Most Powerful FQXi Essay : Fall of Direct realism" and " Of Quantum Non-Locality And Green Cheese Moons In Many Worlds".

      There is one sentence that intrigues me very much :

      "Totality does not have a future, it includes ALL futures" I should add and PASTS. It intrigues me because in "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" my Total Simultaneity is going in the same direction.

      "The present situationis preceisely all that is presented now", is in line with what I call the "Subjective Simultaneity Sphere". My TS is not the "Godly" external randomness, nor the fully "described" randomness it is the AVAILABILITY of infinite probabilities.

      I would be obliged if you could read and comment my essay.

      Wilhelmus

      Dear Sascha,

      I have read your paper - and I am not quite sure, that Wittgenstein's core insight is described resp. interpreted correctly. Obviously Wittgenstein was touched by a deeper truth, which seemed to him unassailable and definitive. I would even say that Wittgenstein himself did not really understand the truth he had found.

      Actually, his tractatus logico-philosophicus can be read as logical skeleton of the (visible resp. physical) Universe. It is not simply symbolic, it has a real physical content. To give an example: Wittgenstein considered CONTRADICTION explicitly as the limiting case of the universe. And I think, he was right.

      But the key to this far-reaching insight is just that thing which made him silent and which is still not issue of systematic scientific inquiry. Platon called it the ONE. It is commonly defined as an omnipresent and invisible ground of all that exists (i.e. the visible resp. observable Universe).

      This thing can indeed be investigated scientifically. Clearly not in the direct way. Something that is truly invisible, is in principle unattainable by scientific method. But if we turn around our usual perspective, this task can be done. Instead of looking at the One itself we have to look at the Universe asking ourselves: How must it look like if its most fundamental branch is really invisible?

      This question is (!) accessible to scientific method - and it could indeed be answered, because the property of INVISIBILITY turned out to be a physically highly restrictive condition with respect to the visible Universe. It implied f.e. a specific set of boundary conditions. And just these boundary conditions (R = 0, R = oo) are intrinsically representing a CONTRADICTION.

      There is a simple reason why the Universe is logically limited by a contradiction: By being limited in this way it can make use of all possibilities that logic allows at all. In other words: The Universe can make use of its full inner potential, because it is only limited by logic itself.

      I am convinced, Wittgenstein has felt this truth - at least intuitively.

      Good Luck for Your Paper, which I read with great interest.

      Kind Regards

      Helmut