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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #40

    Dear Sascha,

    You are indeed right. I'll be soon writing a new paper on the nature of logic in which I'll extend my ideas do develop the logic of the quantum world. It will be a propositional, modal and epistemic logic, that is, you can talk about truth, necessity, possibility and knowledge. I'll try to follow a different approach, something like what you said. I hope we could keep sharing ideas besides this contest. Your ideas may help me. Can you give me your email? And if you haven't, please rate my essay...

    Best Regards

    Frederico

    7 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

    9 months later

    We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.

    Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation, 1920

    Write a Reply...