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.

Hmmm. Well, I wouldn't say the trans-mathematical nature has to be imagined as "supernatural", just "non-realist" - not the sort of realism we expect. We already have the oddity of random muon decay (supposedly identical "structureless particles" with differing lifetimes, which is an absurdity in deterministic terms. Quantum randomness in general can be described en masse but the individual events cannot be predicted in principle. I don't accept MWI or the guise of "continued Schroedinger evolution," so that is genuine randomness. MAth functions cannot create literal randomness since their results are bound by logical necessity. We must use seeds in pseudorandom generators etc.

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

a month later

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

15 days later

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

    7 days later

    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

      Antony,

      Thanks. Yes, I think that information can only approximate reality, since in quantum mechanics there is always that which is out of reach. However, we can *get closer* as I have argued. I'll take a look at your essay (don't be afraid to remind me to comment there if need be, I have been much occupied outside of FQXi for awhile.)

      Hi Neil,

      It's hard to find time to read all the essays - so appreciate that! Certainly QM is fuzzy at best, so must have impact on reality.

      As I said - great approach - all the best in contest!

      Antony

      Neil,

      If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

      Jim

        8 days later

        Hello Neil,

        Good to see you in here from the blogosphere :)

        1--your statement, "There is thus more to "it" than democratically available as bit" -- is probably true on many levels.

        2--The exploration of different states with the same density matrix is interesting, this relates somewhat to Corda's cosmologically oriented paper and the black hole information loss paradox wherein info is lost since a pure state is potentially reduced to a mixed one. He predicts that the information is actually preserved as pure, but if it were not, it would be another area in which the its potentially outnumber the bits.

        Have you checked out the research going on here http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2193502_Distinctness_of_ensembles_having_the_same_density_matrix_and_the_nature_of_liquid_NMR_quantum_computing etc?

        I will read your paper in more detail and speculate more on the nature of your experiment and statements (the experimental setup is somewhat outside my specialty area), but I like your overall line of logic.

        Cheers!

          Hi Jenny. First, thanks for appreciating that QM still says that not only is there that which nobody can find out, there are also kinds of information that some people can know, and others can't find out (or so we think!) There are two classes of "observers," and this has not been widely appreciated. To recap: I can create a photon in a specific state of polarization that *I know.* OTOH, you can't find out what that state is, you have to guess. The (conventional) measurement gives only binary probabilities of it being such and such, and ruins the photon, too.

          I have come up with a few ways to get around that. Previously, I had the idea of using repeated interactions to build up angular momentum in a HWP along a range of values. That could reveal whether a single photon was L or R circular, or elliptical, or linear.

          My current proposal pertains to your point #2 (best put not as "states" with the same DM, but rather ensembles with the same DM. After all, does a single state really and truly "have" a DM itself? It is more a way of talking about them as a whole, in relation, and the chances of finding one or another etc.) I truly think my method could distinguish e.g. R and L mix from H and V mix, etc. Sadly, it would be very difficult in practice due to need for the enormous number of "runs" of improbable detection sequences, to get enough angular momentum to detect. Well it is still of great theoretical interests since supposedly there is no way in principle to distinguish such mixtures. Note that this impotence principle is based on traditional kinds of measurement and assuming "typical" outcomes!

          I will check more of that paper (most directly at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0408079), am looking at abstract right now. Yes it sounds a lot like my idea and note this:

          "We show that differently constructed ensembles having the same density matrix may be physically distinguished by observing fluctuations of some observables. An explicit expression for fluctuations of an observable in an ensemble is given. This result challenges Peres's fundamental postulate and seems to be contrary to the widely-spread belief that ensembles with the same density matrix are physically identical...."

          Yep, bingo. I will need to send them my paper and share ideas. Perhaps you can show mine to some of the profs in your group. I'll take another look at your essay, too and have some comments when I have a good point to make. (BTW, well "of course" the test letter was "Q" ...

          Regards.

          7 days later

          Dear Neil,

          I truly enjoyed your insight and exploration of the question if information is preserved in space-time (It from Bit). Although you have a different approach to spin than I do, I find your mechanical spin transfer approach inspiring and most worthy of merit.

          It has been a pleasure to review and rate your outstanding essay accordingly. Best of luck to you in this competition.

          Regards,

          Manuel

          8 days later

          Hello Neil

          Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

          (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

          said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

          I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

          The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

          Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

          Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

          I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

          Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

          Good luck and good cheers!

          Than Tin

          11 days later

          Dear Neil,

          We are at the end of this essay contest.

          In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

          Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

          eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

          And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

          Good luck to the winners,

          And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

          Amazigh H.

          I rated your essay.

          Please visit My essay.

          Neil,

          Final review and scoring time. I note you didn't respond to my message above and I don't recall a post on my blog. I hope you have read or can read mine before the deadline as it has strong conceptual agreement and I'm convinced you'll love it. Orbital angular momentum is where it's all at and QM is blind to it!

          Some have said the dense abstrct put them off, but loved the essay, with comments including; "groundbreaking", "clearly significant", "astonishing", "fantastic", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "superb", "deeply impressed", etc. But I'd rally like your views on my identification of weak measurement weaknesses and the other inconsistencies we both identify. I hope you'll give me lots more points too.!

          Very well done and thank you for your excellent analysis anyway. Strap in for a boost. Best wishes.

          Peter

            Peter, I will take a close look at your paper as I can see from Abstract it is about a subject dear to my heart and similar to that explored in my own essay: quantum states and whether there are novel experimental tests that can reveal new truths about them. I had gotten a bit depressed and lost much interest in this contest after seeing so many "speculative" papers without specific proposals, and seeing my own effort sink rather low in the ratings. Somehow I had forgotten that ours is instead, like mine in proposing testable new perspectives: "New experiments comparing single-photon pairs are proposed, ..." Indeed! That deserves some cogent comments and I will get back to you before day is done.