Dear Vladimir,

I am happy you read and like my essay. Thanks for the reference to Alexander Zenkin. I find myself in complete agreement with the fragment you quote from his interview. I presume that at this time people are in a big rush, since the information increases exponentially. In math for instance, replacing geometric with algebraic formalism, and further with the category theory one, makes compact many calculations, but there is a trade off in grasping the problems. For those who want to take their time and visualize, there are plenty of videos which can help. I'll just give some examples, this, this, and especially this. I expect in time more advanced interactive methods to be developed, and more and more of our knowledge to be visualized like this. This will also help with the problem of the time needed to learn. Of course, the researchers will not have much time to make videos like these with their most recent work, but hopefully the gap will become smaller in time.

Best regards,

Cristi

Hi Cristi,

Great essay! A lot of excellent hard work clearly went into it. I should have followed your lead and actually explained Wheeler's motivation and position on these questions; you did a superb job on that front, and I especially liked that you played up the retrocausal implications that Wheeler tried to resist.

And most of the rest was great as well. As you noted over on my thread, we're both coming from almost the exact same direction on these problems. In fact, with the exception of page 5 (which I'll nitpick on below) and the Zero Axiom (which I simply don't get), I'm in near-agreement with everything here.

I'll point out that your "global consistency condition", along with your whole point of having many "laws" to choose from, all smack strongly of the spirit behind the sum-over-all-histories/path-integral approach. Something to consider as you pursue this.

Okay, page 5. I think the main issue here is that you're conflating the standard quantum story with the story of a (potentially classical) underlying reality. If there *is* an underlying reality of which we have partial knowledge, and the Schrodinger equation is merely evolving that state of knowledge, then there may be many possible *underlying* realities, but there is still only one solution to the Schrodinger equation itself. (It's just that this solution doesn't correspond to reality; merely our state of limited knowledge.) So your phrase "possible solutions of the Schrodinger equation" is assigning a path-integral like uncertainty to standard QM that simply isn't correct. The Schrodinger equation is just as pre-deterministic as Newtonian physics, the uncertainty principle notwithstanding.

Of course, as you probably saw from my essay, I'm perfectly happy with a system of underconstrained dynamics for which there *are* many allowed solutions, but this necessarily has to be at a deeper, underlying level than standard QM, not at the level of the wavefunction itself.

And this is exactly where the rest of your essay might best inform your quantum story: it all is pointing to a scenario where the laws themselves (at the underlying level, not the epistemic quantum level) are different for different choices of measurement. (Or at least that's how I'm reading it, maybe because I also advocate such a scenario... :-) To make it all work (given Bell's thm, etc.) one will need retrocausality in a block universe, but you seem mostly on board with at least the latter.

Again , great job!

Best,

Ken

    Dear Ken,

    Thank you for reading and commenting my essay. I am glad you too see the strong relations between our views. I am happy that you discussed openly the point you felt we disagree on, contained in page 5. I think that the disagreement will vanish after I will add some completions to what I wrote in page 5. There is a big difference between what I said and the usual formulation of initial value problems. In an initial value problem, the complete initial state is given. By unitary evolution, the unique initial conditions lead to a unique solution to the Schrodinger equation. What I claim is that, by quantum measurement, we don't have access to the complete description of the initial conditions. For example, we may say that the measurement gives an eigenvalue, and we know the precise eigenstate of the observed system. This is true, but by the measurement, we only learn the present state of the observed system, which is a subsystem of the larger system which is the universe. When thinking about the universe, we only learn partial initial conditions, and each one of them refers to a different time, when the particular observation was made. The complete system belongs to a tensor product of Hilbert spaces, and each measurement only gives a factor of the total state. The rest remains undetermined, but at least we know that from all possible solutions, we keep a subspace. This is what I mean by having more possible solutions, and reducing them by successive measurements. Now, we may think that if we are concerned with measuring a subsystem, say a particle, we obtain a unique solution. This is true, so long as the particle did not and will not interact with other systems, which are undetermined. But I referred to larger systems. If we consider the observation of a small system like a single particle, if we measure it twice, we may impose to it two inconsistent initial conditions (if the observables don't commute). But, by making two measurements, we can no longer say that the second measurement measures only the particle, since it interacted with the previous measurement device. So, what we observe now is a composite system, and our observation refers to only one of the Hilbert spaces composing it. The complete solutions will depend on unknown states of the previous measurement device, which cannot be known completely, since the device has macroscopic parts. I hope I was able to address your concerns with page 5, which was to small to contain the entire discussion, but if you still have questions or comments, I will be happy to hear them.

    Thanks again for your comments, and for the suggestions!

    Cristi

    Dear Cristi,

    Source and Observation, is the Cause and Effect; that is in analogue with Tao. Source of information is the action in space-time continuum, in that information is the transfer of energy in particle scenario where as it is the transfer of matter with Hamiltonian in string-matter continuum scenario. Thus in particle scenario the nature information at the source is continuum whereas it is discrete at the observer as the observation is probabilistic rather than realistic. To resolve this paradox on information continuum, we ascribe a generic wave mechanics with string-matter segments in that the Delayed choice experiment is also elucidatory and thereby the string-segment nature of matter may be validated.

    With best wishes

    Jayakar

      Dear Jayakar,

      Thank you for reading and commenting. You made very instructive observations and analogies. I agree that "in particle scenario the nature information at the source is continuum whereas it is discrete at the observer as the observation is probabilistic rather than realistic." I look forward to read your essay, and see how you approached this.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Dear Ken,

      Thinking at Wheeler's "law without law", and at Tegmark's "mathematical universe", and various landscape scenarios, how could all these possible universes be generated? One way is to think that, since in sum over histories we sum over all permitted histories, maybe we should consider that all possible universe exist. Another proposal is that of Tegmark, that there is an algorithm which can list all of them, so they are implicit in that simple program. An alternative is to consider a pool containing all possible features of a universe, and to select from this pool logically consistent combinations, and obtain any possible universe. At first sight, it seems too much to consider a pool containing all possible possible statements. Of course, in the pool, they can contradict each other, but when a consistent set of features is selected, obviously they are not allowed to conflict. A problem is, why starting with such a huge information, like all possible statements, including their negations? Isn't this against Occam's razor? Indeed. But all possible statements can be obtained from a self-contradictory statement, by the principle of explosion. And this is axiom zero: just a cheap way to generate all possible propositions. Then, the universes are generated by selecting logically consistent subsets of propositions.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Dear all,

      Until 29th I will be away, so I may not be able to answer.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Dear Cristi -

      It is very interesting to see Wheeler's ideas covered in such depth; I loved your coverage of the subject. You speak of Wheeler's exhortation to be bold and to question everything, and this makes me think about how all discoveries were 'pre-discovered' - by artists, writers, and people living off the land. They didn't worry about looking ridiculous; they had to survive, and so they took a clear look at everything.

      You present the idea of our subjectivity (or It from Bit) by using the very effective analogy of the different webs. This makes Wheeler's concept very clear, I must say. I consider the matter in broader terms than is usually allowed by physics: That is, from the perspective of evolution - and how our constant yes-no interaction with the Cosmos has effectively created our 'Species Cosmos.'

      We determine the past, and the physical laws - as Wheeler says - but only in so far as these relate to us at a particular point in evolution: Our perception of the Cosmos never remains the same - and over great enough periods of time all discoveries, all facts, are re-configured beyond recognition.

      Like you, I know this doesn't mean that only information exists: There is a 'greater reality' beyond the Species Cosmos - and it is this that gives phenomena their correlation, as you point out.

      In fact, as our biology and information systems develop (and as our experimental sophistication increases) we perceive ever more of this 'greater reality'. We cannot know this 'greater reality' completely - anymore than we can know the 'complete state' - but we can deduce certain of its effects upon the Cosmos, and upon the logically consistent views of the evolving observer.

      It might interest you to consider these deductions in my essay.

      I think you would agree that it's accurate to say that information exists in correlation with the field of observation: That It and Bit are correlated - the observer evolving and altering his perception of the cosmos, as the cosmos does the same. As you put it - 'It from Bit and Bit from It.'

      In the course of evolution 'It' is altered completely: the organism interacts with inorganic reality in a certain manner at every stage of development, and we have only to look at our cousins the monkeys to understand how radically our 'Its' have changed over the last 300,000 years.

      This might seem to have little to do with Physics, until we consider that evolution never stops - indeed, it is occurring in minute increments at every moment of perception: It is, ultimately, time itself - for no change or sequence of any sort exists apart from the moment of perception, which is itself entirely determined by evolution at that moment. It is Evolution that creeps into everything and makes the world; and I believe Physics must expand Wheeler's concept of It and Bit to take account of this evolutionary influence, if we are to define how 'information underlies reality - '

      Once again, I found your essay very helpful - and certainly very well written - and have rated it highly. I do believe you'll find much to think about in my paradigm, and I hope you drop by soon and let me know what you think.

      All the best in the competition!

      John.

        Dear Cristi,

        I have come back here to say (in hard score) that I totally buy your argument. It only needs a working model like I think I have per chance attempted to raise in What a Wavefunction is . While my arguments may not be YET elegant am sure there will be physicists who can read and rate with required open mind. I have found one or two!!

        When you are back please do tell a peer or two to compare and contrast with yours. And then rate, deadline permitting. But we are here at last to push boundaries, ain't we?

          Cristi,

          Thank you for a very lucid and enjoyable essay. I am very much in agreement with your global consistency principle.

          It is also possible to express this principle using bounded Lagrangians. The yin/yang is the reciprocity between the observable consequences and unobservable consequences (erased entanglement information). (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

          In this way, quantum information theory complements your arguments.

          Best wishes,

          Richard

            Hi Cristi

            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 you have touched some corners of it.

            Best

            Than Tin

              Dear Christi,

              very well written, well illustrated and highly informative essay. I really loved the spider webs analogy and iceberg illustration. Axiom zero was a bit puzzling to me but the illustration was nice. An enjoyable read, you deserve to do well. Good luck, Georgina

                Dear John,

                Thank you for your deep comments. I find useful your comparison between our views, it will be helpful for me when I will read your essay. I am not competent in discussing the relations with biology, but I am interested in learning more. At any rate, I suspect that there have to be strong relations.

                Best regards,

                Cristi

                Dear Chidi,

                Thank you for coming back with more interesting comments. You said "while my arguments may not be YET elegant am sure there will be physicists who can read and rate with required open mind." Elegance of arguments may ease communications, but maybe is not mandatory. I hope the peers reading your comment did or will follow your link to your paper to read and rate with the open mind as you mentioned. Good luck with the contest and with your research!

                Best regards,

                Cristi

                Dear Richard,

                I am happy for your nice and interesting comments. What you said about bounded Lagrangians and quantum information theory sounds very intriguing, and I look forward to read your essay.

                Best regards,

                Cristi

                Dear Than Tin,

                Very interesting comments about the simplicity of nature. Intriguing ideas about Plank's constant as the mother of all dualities, indeed, it can be viewed this way.

                Best regards,

                Cristi

                Dear ___Ram,

                Thank you for the nice comment and the wishes. I wish you good luck with the contest and your research!

                Best regards,

                Cristi