THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING & THE ITSY QUBITSY UNIVERSE by Vladimir F. Tamari

That was Loretnz's view of course. It works but requires a special reference frame that you can't detect. Poincare understood relativity a bit better but still hald a conventionalist view where he thought it was right to choose a reference frame by convention because that is the simplest view. Perhaps that is nearer your position. Nothing wrong with that way of thinking, it is just not the modern view.

Vladimir

"Just today someone told me epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge"

I would not worry about that, philosophy is a complete waste of time. All you have to understand is that physical existence is all that we can potentially know. We can only know what it is possible for us to know, and we cannot externalise ourselves from existence in order to ascertain what it 'is'. And knowing is based on a physical process, ie we receive physical input, which is commonly known as seeing, hearing, feeling, etc. Stick with common sense.

Paul

Lev

Physically, there is no such state as continuous. Or at least to be continuous would mean the same state perpetually. For difference to occur there must be discreteness (ie change by steps)

Paul

Vladimir

Bah, you should have not have said that and set me off!

Leaving aside the fact that SR is not what generally people think it is, the thinking in Einstein which supposedly substantiates the concept of relativity does not involve observation. Because there is no light available for potential observers to observe with. You find me some. Lightening will not do it, unless you want your eyes burnt out. The point being that his second postulate is irrelevant, because he did not use it as defined. All Einstein did was utilise a constant by which to calibrate distance and duration. And for want of something and because he thought this accommodated observation, he described it as light. But it was just a constant, it could have been anything, and it is not observational light. So this whole exercise, including hs own efforts, in squaring light constancy with rate of change is a complete waste of time, because the problem was never there to begin with.

Space and time, ie the rate at which reality alters, are absolute, it occurs independently of us, and definitively so. By conflating existence and the representation thereof (ie light), in failing to allow for observation, Einstein shifted the real time differential which is in the receipt of light from that to the other end of the process, ie deeming it to be a feature of existence itself. This incorrect presumption of indefiniteness is carried through into QM. Measurement cannot "affect the sytstem randomly", or indeed in anyway whatsoever, because to be able to measure something it has already occurred. Apart from which is observing you receive, ie interact with, light, not what occurred. All this nonsense about observers, etc, is just a device to try and rationalise out the fundamental flaws in the theories.

Paul

Lev

This distinction is false. Every actual object is different from every other actual object (leaving aside that physically there is no such thing as object, but a sequence of physically exisent states which appears to be an object, because certain superficial defining physical features persist over time). So one cannot actually have a 'class', or only of one state

Its "informational representation" is just another way of describing its superficial characteristics. Physically nothing is the same as anything else. At a higher level of conceptualisation, one can discern similarities, but this has nothing to do with 'information'. Indeed, what this concept actually relates to physically, is a moot question.

Paul

Paul,

I'm very sorry that you disrespect you *most powerful* (informational) ability to recognize patterns, e.g. to recognize a cat you haven't seen before as a "cat".

Vladimir, still, from a 'conceptual' point of view, it is more productive to keep the two separate. But, of course, it's your essay. ;-)

Lev

The point is, as I have pointed out in commentary on your own blog, there is no such thing, physically, as 'cat'. And physics is supposed to be considering what physically occurs. Cat, is a conceptualisation of physical existence at a much higher level than what occurs. That is, we deem cat on the basis of certain superficial physical attributes, and then assert that this conceived 'thing' persists in existence so long as those attributes pertain. Indeed, we even allow the attributes to alter at that level of conception, but still assert its continued existence. Which is a contradiction. But is rationalised by the concept that 'it' has changed.

So even at that level we ignore what is actually happening, which is understandable in order to get on with ordinary life. But physically, cat is a sequence of definitive discrete physically existent states, which are such that at a much higher level of conception manifest certain similarities. And physics needs to understand this if it is to make proper progress, ie it needs to understand how what it is investigating (ie physical existence) occurs. In other words, any given cat is not physically the same at different times, and no cat is the same as another, except at an artificially conceived level.

Paul

Vladimir

"I wonder if there is a sound mathematical analysis along the lines you describe for Relativity sans the constant speed postulate?"

But the second postulate was not deployed as stated, it was just a constant, which happened to be an example of light. There is no relativity in physical existence. At any given time, something occurs. The relativity, or more precisely, time differential, is in the receipt of a physically existent representation of that occurrence (ie in the case of sight-light), which leaving other factors aside, fundamentally revolves around relative spatial positon. There is no observation in Einstein, because there is no observational light, occurrence and representation thereof, were conflated, so this time differential in the receipt of light, which does occur, was been attributed to existence. This simple mistake was counterbalanced by another simple mistake, ie his failure to understand timing (after Poincaré) which resulted in the creation of an extra layer of time (ie "common time").

Paul

Paul, by the way, a stone today is different from the same stone tomorrow, which is true for most objects/processes in Nature. But that does not mean that "there are no such thing, physically". This is an absolutely typical mode of "physical existence".

Lev

A stone, or indeed any other object, is different at any given time, never mind about tomorrow. So there is no such thing physically, ie as stone is conceived. Obviously there is something physically existent, and that is a physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. But what is happening is that whilst there is actually, physically, a sequence of different states, superficially, it appears to persist in existence. Because we are deeming stone on the basis of superficial attributes.

This is all understandable at the 'getting on with life' level. We know there are bits dropping off St Pauls, the stone is discolouring, and if we examined it with an electron microscope...But we just rationalise that as it is changing. Not it is different, and there is no such thing as St Pauls. We only relent in the assertion that there is a St Pauls when it is reduced to a pile of rubble and debris. But physics should not be falling into this ontologically incorrect mode.

Paul

Vladimir, I really enjoyed your essay. You manage to juxtaposition your artistic or humanitarian talent with your scientific knowledge in a way that makes us, or rather me, sit up and think over what you have written .

I particularly agree with your observations "Only when such challenges are satisfactorily answered in a consistent theory of everything can the fundamental essay Question about Reality be answered." and "We use our untrammeled imagination and a wide range of mathematical tools to create theories of Reality and are so spellbound with our ideas - our own creations - that we assume Nature has to fit their mold."

I am reminded of Feymann remarks in his Appendix to the Rogers Commission, which investigated the Challenger disaster - "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." and would like to reword it to "For a successful universal theory of nature, reality must take precedence over presumption, for nature cannot be fooled"

Vladimir,

Your essay is very cogent and insightful, but I still have a problem with the conclusion, one which goes to the nature of the contest question in the first place. I suppose I did not make clear enough that while I paraphrased Marshall McLuhan's equating the medium with the message, I do not agree with it. To me, medium and message are a dichotomy, so to say one is the other would be like saying up=down, or good=bad, or left=right, or night=day. Or more related to the nature of this contest, that node=network.

If I was to paraphrase your conclusion, to make it work for me, I would say, It=Qubits. Remember a qubit simply does not exist, distinct from context.

If I was to paraphrase MuLuhan's quote, I would say; The medium is the message of the previous medium. Much as children are the message of the parents and medium to their children.

In my essay, I didn't say the energy is both medium and message, but that energy is the medium and information is the message.

The problem this raises with the contest question; It from Bit, or Bit from It, is that "it," the "reality," is both information and energy, message and medium, yet "bit" is just information. There is no message without a medium to convey it, as I argued in my essay. Like a dimensionless point, even mathematically it doesn't exist, because it is a multiple of zero. So just like an infinite series of dimensionless points will never add up to a line, since even infinity multiplied by zero is still zero, a reality composed of some platonic realm of information does not physically exist.

So there is no "It from Bit" and "Bit from It" is just the static (in)formation of dynamic processes.

The problem I have with Planck lengths is they are inherently fuzzy, as any further defining distinction would have to be even smaller, thus refuting the premise of "smallest." It goes to the problem of the aforementioned "dimensionless points." We want absolute clarity, but absolute and distinction are contradictory concepts, as at the level of the absolute, there is no distinction. Which is another reason for accepting fuzziness as inherent when trying to make distinctions.