New Pathways to Quantum Spring: Can Information About States Be Made More Democratic? by Neil Bates

Joe

Because the physical input you receive is light, and that is not the reality, it is a physically existent representation thereof. It was created as a result of an interaction with it, and light has features which make it good at representing. Hence the evolution of sight. If light was just random, or bizarre, then sight would not have rendered the possessor an advantage, ie he would not have seen the big monster coming and been eaten anyway!

Precisely how good light is as an accurate and comprehensive representation of what occurred is a question concerning the physical properties of light, how it intereacts and how it conveys, and what influences it i susceptible to whilst travelling.

Paul

Neil

It is not a matter of how important observation is, in order to discern what occurred, but that that process cannot affect the physical circumstance.

Paul

Neil

This is difficult to follow in this format.

Very early on there is a false statement, ie any two events with the same properties are identical. If they are two then they cannot be identical!! The properties, whatever that relates to, are the same. But I doubt very much anyway if an exact same set of circumstances could re-occur. This smacks of similarities being drawn at a level of conception that is higher than what actually exists. So as a methodology for categorisation, then ok, but not as a depiction/explanation of physical existence.

And physical existence is not a series of events, it is a sequence of physically existent states. And within any given stateh there can be no form of change, otherwise it cannot exist. This is the only route out of the conundrum that existence involves existing but also difference. It therefore has to be a sequence of discrete states. That is why he then confuses time and timing. Time is not a succession of moments, that is the timing system. Time is the rate at which alteration occurs in realities.

Paul

Neil

There is nothing philosophical about what I am saying, or indeed what Joe has just said. They are generic statements, ie facts devoid of the detailed form. See the wood for the trees is the expression.

And hasn't it ever struck you that the substantiation of some science as being counter intuitive rings an alarm bell?

Science is not about "finding out", if the start premise is wrong, ie does not correspond with how physical existence must occur. Like for instance, asserting that the activity of observation has an affect on the physical circumstance, asserting that existence occurs relatively, asserting that there is time in a physical reality, not differentiating the existential sequence from the existential representation thereof (eg light), not understanding that physical existence can only occur in one definitive physically existent state at a time, etc, etc.

Paul

Joe

Your essential point is correct. Physical existence comprises a sequence of discrete, definitive, physically existent states. We know there is existence, and that that involves difference. And the only way out of that conundrum is sequence. Of course one can invoke all sorts of beliefs, but this is supposed to be science. And we can only have knowledge of what occurred (this is another answer to your question above about opening our eyes.

But, because we are in an existentially closed system (we only know because of a physical process), what we do know can be validated, albeit within that confine and then ultimately we can deem that knowledge to be the equivalent of the physical existence knowable to us. In simple language, we know all there is to know.

Paul

Neil, I just finished reading your very interesting and well thought out essay. You argue that "it from bit" is impossible because we cannot know all information about a state. Is "it from qubit" or "quit from qubit" possible?

And light creates all real odors, sounds, tastes and tactile impressions. Who knew?

interesting point about the mathematical double. Smolin confuses the issue by talking about things like evolution that cannot be well explained in mathematical terms. There are indeed many parts of science that are not served well by mathematics and there may be more of that in physics than people expect. E.g. I think people have had too high an expectation that low energy physics of standard model can be derived from a fundamental theory. On that much I agree with Smolin.

However I dont yet see a reason to abandon the idea that the underlying laws of physics are described by some yet to be discovered mathematical formalism, even if some things depend on the solution of the equations rather than the equations themselves. The effectiveness of maths in physics points in that direction and it seems to me that the only alternative is to allow an element of the supernatural in which case science is really doomed. I would be interested if anyone can see it another way.

In his book Smolin talks about "metalaws" and a principle of universality that may explain them. This is so similar to my ideas that I wonder if he got that from me. It is not clear if he accepts that at this level of metalaws the mathematical principle holds.

Philip, Neil - in relation to Smolin, determinism, math and computability:

According to Lee Smolin (and his Loop Quantum Gravity) self-organized critical systems are statistical systems that naturally evolve without fine tuning to critical states in which correlation functions are scale invariant (Ansari H.M., Smolin L. Self-organized criticality in quantum gravity. arXiv:hep-th/0412307v5).

I would support the view of Smolin in the meaning that the universe is a dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality. This structured criticality is a property of complex systems where small events may trigger larger events. This is a kind of chaos where the general behavior of the system can be modeled on one scale while smaller- and larger-scale behaviors remain unpredictable. The simple and well known example of that phenomenon is a pile of sand.

When QM and GR are computable and deterministic, the Universe evolution (as naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic. It does not mean that computability and determinism are related. Roger Penrose proves that computability and determinism are different things (Penrose R. The Large, the Small and the Human Mind. Cambridge University Press, 1997. p.120).

To summarize my view: the actual Universe is computable (however only in Lyapunov time) but its evolution is non-computable.

Neil,

It was not philosophical conjecture that allows me to know for certain that: One (1) real Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real "speed" of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history. It was common sense. Do you honestly think that any scientist could only have a scientific brain, or any philosopher only have a philosophical brain?

Neil

Yes we can know everything about the 'universe'. Whether we can achieve that is a practical point. This is because the 'universe' is what we can potentially know. Whether that is the same as what 'really' exists we cannot know, because we cannot externalise ourselves from our existence. We can of course believe in anything we want, but that is commonly known as religion, not science.

In other words, we can only have knowledge of whatever existence is, and that is itself conditioned by the physical process that underpins it. Not some philosophical waffle. We compile that knowledge by comparison and the identification of difference, getting an ever better approximation, assuming of course no false presumptions or a lack of due process. Eventually, when no new knowledge becomes available then we can deem that to be the equivalent of 'it'. That is as good as it gets, but then if one is trapped in an existentially closed system, all one can know is that system, from within.

Paul

I finally got back to reading essays. Your essay is curious. I think your proposed experiment is related to using a birefringent crystal to split a photon into am entangled pair of photons through their L and R polarization states.

LC

Neil,

Very nice essay, and our theses have much resonance. In fact I've explored some of your propositions further. In particular;

"tangible angular momentum is clearly not incidental to what we can know about

quantum objects." Absolutely central I agree, and I propose both than 'non-available' information has fooled us and that AngularM is massively powerful.

"we should at least re-examine the presumption that statistical coincidences

that simulate runs of circular photons, will produce all the same results as real such runs" Yes! Spot on. I hope you'll comment on my dissection of the error there.

"We still won't really understand wavefunction collapse, despite various controversial attempts to explain it."

Very true, but I hope you may also then give your views on some insight I think AngularM may offer in that area. I also propose a very practical, in theory, experimental test involving single photon emissions which will falsify a proposed resolution of the EPR paradox.

One question; You say above to Paul that; "interaction-free measurements' are now appreciated and used." I found not so, as so called weak measurement techniques all still involve interactions, then reverting to 'statistics' which I falsify as a valid method of extracting the information required.

Anyway, good writing and very pertinent view, well presented. Worth a much better score. I look forward to your thoughts on mine.

Best of luck

Peter

Dear Neil Bates

It is true that "your background is too complex to coherently summarize.". if put into practice would probably be much more complicated. Have you something of measure for it to be more simpler?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Dear Neil,

Nice approach to the question. I really like the UO and found it topical and relevant with regard to weak multiple measurements. Also I like your openness to explore the possibility that information might not necessarily be more fundamental than reality. Nice use of physics across the whole essay.

If time permits I'd be delighted if you could take a look at my essay.

Well done!

Antony.

Dear Neil Bates,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827