Dear Sreenath BN,

Your enjoyable Essay, with its focus on information and reality in the context of physics, biology and maths, gives me much to think about. Indeed, I'm re-examining my own experience in the light of some of your ideas!

However, that examination also leads me to question some of your phrasing. Consider the following sentence of yours: "Thus Reality is mind dependent, at least in the initial stages of framing hypotheses and Theories."

This sentence may be re-interpreted and understood in its context (at least that's what I attempted), but IMO it exemplifies the need to clearly distinguish between the REALITIES that are out there ... and those within. Here, it seems, the need is to be clear about the PHYSICAL and the MENTAL: the objective and the subjective?

Also, there may be some truth in this: "For a classical physicist, the Reality is 'out there to be discovered', whereas for a quantum physicist, the Reality is 'out there to be Invented' because the quantum Reality simply depends on the measurement outcomes and hence there is no The Reality but only circumstantial Reality."

For one might say that some quantum physicists are off with the pixies (with their nonsense inventions); yet from such thoughts better thoughts sometimes emerge. And thus we arrive at better mental pictures of the real objective (even pristine) physical reality that is independent of our thoughts and experiments.

However, for me, an engineer, most Reality is out there ... to be discovered and understood. So I very much agree with this: "... we find that this journey is full of surprises and joy, and is endless."

But I would differentiate wisdom from knowledge! For, alas, the following is nowhere in sight: "Consequently this provides us with limitless wisdom."

With thanks for the stimulating ideas, and the good wishes; you here have the latter too, from me directly.

Trusting that you'll find more of the former in my Essay; Gordon

5 days later

Dear Gordon,

May be you will be less lazy than me when I look at your essay and you will be able to follow my line of reasoning

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

You are young but with an exceptional ability to think about one of the most puzzling problems ever given to the human understanding, so have a look at my approach.

Best wishes,

Michel

    Hi Dipak,

    Thanks for making contact and thanks for your best wishes.

    I've read your Essay and am intrigued by the consequences that you develop from our digital nature. I trust that you will continue to successfully refine your ideas and your mathematics.

    As you have seen, my own research has a very different focus. However, in its simplest form, it does derive from the digital nature of orientations in 3-space.

    With best regards; and thanks again; Gordon

    Dear Michel,

    Thank you for making contact. I look forward to a good discussion here, bypassing any questions of your laziness or my age.

    For it seems to me that the essence of one significant difference in our thinking relates to Bell's Theorem and your analysis of the CHSH inequality.

    The beauty of this difference is that it can be discussed at the level of high-school maths and logic. Thus:

    On page-5 of your Essay we find an unnumbered equation representing the TRUISM: C = ±2.

    Since this is a TRUISM, we must wonder how it could ever be subverted by any experiment?

    So let us expand the truism using Bell's ABCD notation:

    B(A+C) - D(A-C) = ±2 = AB + BC - AD + CD. (GW-1)

    Let us now recognise this FACT: Entangled photon-pairs are tested one pair at a time; with no two pairs the same.

    So: Let the sets of pairs used in evaluating RHS of (GW-1) be identified as i, j, k, l respectively. (The pairs, of course, may be tested in any way -- and in any order -- that you wish.)

    Then your experiments (as well as my theory) can yield:

    [AB]i + [BC]j - [AD]k + [DC]l >2; (GW-2)

    where [.] denotes an average.

    What then has gone wrong with the truism that your Essay endorses? For, here, both theory and experiment refute it!

    I suggest that your difficulty lies in (GW-1) -- that unnumbered equation of yours with C = ±2 -- where you employ each Bellian outcome twice: 2(ABCD).

    For here's a major problem: How can you ensure that the B-result in AB is the same B-result in BC; etc?

    Alas, you cannot. So the fault (I suggest) is not with the TRUISM but with naive-realism on which Bellian-Inequalities are based. Please see my Essay: Sections 4-5.

    If you refer to my Essay: Equations (21) and (22), there's an even shorter refutation of CHSH and your TRUISM; along the same lines.

    Looking forward to your response; with my thanks again; Gordon

    Hello Xiong,

    and thank you for your comments.

    As for the EPR mystery, I believe any "mystery" there may be removed by studying that brief Section 7 in my Essay.

    To put it even more briefly, it's my view that EPR does not allow for measurement-perturbation: though the fact that a "measurement" perturbs the "measured" system was known from the earliest days of quantum mechanics.

    Recommending that you understand EPR correctly -- and remove the EPR "mystery" from those others that you consider in your own nice Essay -- I'm happy to discuss it further if you wish.

    As for the interesting ideas in your own Essay, I'd like to mention this: In an EPR-Bohm or Bell-test set-up, when the Stern-Gerlach devices (SGDs) are displaced so that their symmetry is broken, MUCH NEW INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

    Especially the neat result in EPRB: [AB] = -a.b; where [.] denotes the expectation.

    If the SGDs are independently displaced but their symmetry is maintained (say, accidentally), the symmetry of the particle-pairs again provides an outcome-correlation of +1 or -1: which is not very informative when compared to [AB] = -a.b.

    So while my focus is on the study of correlations, I still ask the question that is presented in Footnote 2, page 2, of my Essay: "Isn't information all about correlations too?" For, if "information" does not correlate with facts, is it really information?

    With thanks again; and wishing you the best of good luck: Gordon

    Hi Antony,

    with thanks for your very welcome comments.

    And though I'm inclined to see the ITS as more fundamental, my Essay is certainly based on some interesting BITS and the important ITS that they lead us to.

    I've read your own Essay several times and have enjoyed the lively discussion that you've generated. And while your subject ranges far afield from my own specialities, you are to be congratulated on the bold and forthright speculation that you deliver.

    One thought: I note, in your discussion with Tejinder, that the subject of quantum superpositions arose in the context of your Fibonacci analysis.

    In Sections 9 and 10 of my Essay you will find a local-realistic analysis that delivers the correct EPRB result without recourse to "quantum superpositions" or "collapse" -- which is certainly the way that I see the world -- such mathematical devices being convenient mathematical short-cuts.

    So (to my thought): Your analysis might not need to address such entities?

    With my thanks again, and wishing you every success in the contest and with the development of your theory; Gordon

    Dear Gordon,

    My lazyness is only because I am so busy this week. As you answered, I will study more thoroughly your essay in the coming days.

    Your point is extremely relevant: can we say something about unperformed measurements, this a counterfactual argument that is used in classical physics as well. If one accepts it, then we are led to the contextuality of quantum measuremnts. I like the book by Asher Peres about this, and also the papers by David Mermin.

    It seems to me that we don't have any other choice than to accept counterfactual arguments in science. Doing it for the (multiple) qubit observables, one arrives at a beautiful mathematical structure as described in my essay, well in the spirit of Wheeler' viewpoint.

    Best regrds,

    Michel

    Dear Daryl,

    Many thanks for your comments, your definite modesty, and our shared hope!

    Re the last: Given that my Essay contains repeated requests for critical comments, I'm truly surprised how many "1s" I've scored without one accompanying word of critique. So I do hold hope that some serious criticism may yet be delivered.

    As for your own intriguing Essay, I truly am not fit to judge; but I can say this: What an interesting proposition, and so nicely presented!

    And I'm certainly on your side re the following: Like you, I do not agree with this from Wheeler (as extracted from your Essay):

    "Not until the observing sense, or observing device...has chosen the question to be asked, and by its registration has made a record long enough lived to produce internal or external action, has an elementary quantum phenomenon taken place that contributes to the formation of what we call reality. No other way do we know to build this reality. Existence? How else is it brought into being except through elementary quantum phenomena?"

    For my Essay (eliminating QM's "collapse" mechanism), reveals the underlying "beables" in all EPRB-Bell-style experiments: "Beables" being Bell's word for things which exist INDEPENDENT of OBSERVATION.

    So, while I oppose Bell's views in so far as his "theory" is concerned, I support him here (as opposed to Wheeler).

    With my thanks again, and noting your success in last year's essay contest, I'll be supporting your Essay with a top rating.

    PS: Let me add: I also appreciate your courage in taking a stand against something every bit as treasured in the Academy as Bell's Theorem! Though I suspect your target is better constructed, and more resistive, than that! For NO EXPERIMENT supports Bell's Theorem (and every such supports my local realism).

    Cheers for now: Gordon

    Dear Michel,

    Thanks for taking my petite plaisanterie in good spirits. I took your supposed "laziness" as an invitation to bring some "youthful exuberance" into the discussion of our common interests.

    I suspect that you are correct in anticipating that our differences may well be focussed on the nature of, and the problems with, counterfactuals.

    For my part, I'm inclined to the view: "Impossible experiments have no outcomes!"

    Given your fondness for Wheeler, I'm hoping that you can help me recall Wheeler's famous saying; the equivalent to this one from Max Born's Nobel Lecture: "The lesson to be learned from what I have told of the origin of quantum mechanics is that probable refinements of mathematical methods will not suffice to produce a satisfactory theory, but that somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept, unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate to open up the road."

    Looking forward to our discussions: especially re that hidden concept; with best regards; Gordon

    Watson FQXi 2013 FIGURES: 1 and 2 (i).

    Figure 1. An attractive low-cost 3D model for understanding every variant of equation (9). [Originally constructed with a 10 mm polyurethane ball, three 200 mm knitting-needles and three annuli cut from coloured paper.] The 'a-b' plane is yellow; the 'a-lambda' plane is red; the 'b-lambda-prime' plane is blue. Using your cursor, the model may be activated and viewed from any angle.

    Figure 2: (i) From Fig. 1, a representation of the arbitrary spherical triangle XYZ on a unit sphere; OX = 'a'; OY = 'b'; OZ = 'lambda'; ie, to be clear: orientation 'a' freely chosen by you/Alice; 'b' freely chosen by your partner/Bob;  'lambda' random.Attachment #1: Watson_2013_FIG._1.pdfAttachment #2: Watson_2013_FIG._2_i.pdf

    Watson FQXi 2013 FIGURES: 2 (ii) and 2 (iii).

    Figure 2: (ii) The unit sphere sectioned on the 'a-b' plane with 'lambda' in the background; showing the angle 'phi = (a; b)', etc.

    Figure 2: (iii) The 'a-b plane' with 'lambda' (also 'lambda-prime') rotated into it, preserving the true angle between 'lambda' and orientation 'a'.Attachment #1: Watson_2013_FIG._2._ii.pdfAttachment #2: Watson_2013_FIG._2._iii.pdf

    Watson FQXi 2013 FIGURES: 2 (iv) and 3.

    Figure 2: (iv) A tabular annotation of Fig. (iii), showing that the results, per (9), agree with the results from Fig. 1 and #19.5.

    Figure 3: The causal dynamics and correlative relations in a complete wm specification of EPRB (Bell 1964); after Spekkens (2012:Fig. 1). Spekkens' S, T, X, Y and  are replaced by wm-Its (beables). WM-Bits (information = correlative relations) are shown via labeled dashed-lines. A complete wm specification of EPRB (Bell 1964) is thus provided. Consistent with WLR, the correlative relations void Spekkens' second (unnumbered) equation and many conclusions.Attachment #1: Watson_2013_FIG._2_iv.pdfAttachment #2: Watson_2013_FIG.3.pdf

    Dear Watson,

    I have no words to praise your valiant effort to rewrite whole of QM from your new mechanics called wholistic mechanics and its commonsense philosophy of wholistic-local-realism. I whole heartedly appreciate you if you succeed in reformulating QM from 'classical point of view' so that all weirdness of QM disappears and then it looks like 'classical mechanics'. But the point is how you succeed in eliminating quantum weirdness and mystery in cases like double-slit experiment, quantum-entanglement (QE), quantum-tunneling, etc. to mention a few, on the basis of your WM.

    I appreciate your attempt to falsify Bell's theorem and explaining QE on the basis of your WM. I, too, have written a paper on QE and I view it from quite different perspective and in it also super luminal speed would not arise. But it is completely non-mathematical and I would like you to have a look at it and give a mathematical touch to it. I want your response regarding this. Your idea of describing QE in terms of "the law of linked correlations: correlated tests, interactions, disturbances on correlated things produce correlated results, without mystery", is making me think about reconciling it with my interpretation of QE.

    In your last sentence below conclusions, "Is wm's description of EPRB complete? Please respond critically", is making me think critically on QM as I am having my own version of QM (i.e. a theory on QM). If you want to have a look at it, I feel you should have, I will send it to you. Please post your comments in my thread so that I can respond to them immediately.

    I wish you all the best in your endeavor to dethrone QM and establish your theory in that place. I am going to give your essay highest rating for its originality and elegance.

    Sincerely,

    Sreenath

      Dear Gordon,

      I am now taking the time to read and understand your approach. Fist of all, I have to say that for me Bell's theorem is difficult reading (laziness?). It is why I prefer to refer to Mermin "Hidden variables and two theorems of John Bell (1993)" to grasp the point. May be there is something wrong in Bell after all.

      If we accept counterfactual reasoning (do you accept it?), then Mermin's square and Mermin's pentagram tell us a lot about the the structure of observations in quantum mechanics. I went back to the structure of Bell's inequality (in fact CHSH) later, as in Sect. 3 of my essay.

      http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

      No need of entanglement here, my two-qubit square has only IX,XI,IZ and ZI as its edges (IX means the tensorial product of I and the Pauli spin matrix along x and so on). If you believe in the virtue of mathematics of giving clear statements (and I think you do), then you should be interested in the graphs, more precisely the maps on the Riemann sphere, underlying CHSH and Mermin. Possibly, this may have impact on your future research.

      I intend to give you a very good appreciation taking into account your courage in working on these topics and the enthusiastic style you have. FQXI seems to be a living place where to meet alternative opinions on several important topics dealing with the foundations of physics.

      Good luck,

      Michel

      Hi Gordon,

      I'll read over sections 9 and 10 again. Yes my essay doesn't explain EPRB at all, but Tejinder's does.

      I simply look at the converging pathways that limits information exchange when it energy falls into a Black Hole, such that the Fibonacci sequence from -3 to 3 emerges.

      Best wishes to you too with the contest & nice to "meet" you! :o)

      Antony

      Hi Gordon

      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 of Luck,

      Than Tin

        Dear Gordon,

        I have been hoping to see someone fault the assertions in your paper theoretically or mathematically but I have not seen or is there? I am asking a few people on the relational space divide for a clarification:

        Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

        You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

        Accept my best regards,

        Akinbo