Shannon’s View on Wheeler’s credo by Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckhard,

What a pleasure to read your essay. And not just because I agree with you 100%. I love the way in which you present deep insightful analysis with historical data, persons, ideas and timelines. For example, I did not know that Wheeler introduced the S-matrix. Yet it is obviously true, as you state, that "Wheelers S-matrix is not just a tool but it already represents his inclination of attributing physical reality to any mathematical model." And of course your analysis is perfectly framed in terms of, and well integrates the themes of, your previous essays. This is in the same vein that you note that: "Wheeler offered his "it of bit" when the practical superiority of digital methods of noise-independent data transmission was obvious, and a digital world seemed to be quite natural." A fine example of just how historical contextual perspective can contribute to understanding the development of trends of thought. But of course, as you point out, "not every seemingly natural law is absolutely correct." A truism that still escapes some.

I also appreciate your putting the Wheeler/Feynman idea of electrons bouncing back and forth in time in clear perspective. In this sense, and in terms of negative frequencies, you might find interesting the fact that my master equation admits only a unidirectional time solution!

You note that "the theoretically expected symmetries were obviously at variance with reality" (although this bothered Wheeler not a whit.) I would point out that Weinberg notes that *every* symmetry that has appeared on the march to the Standard Model has turned out to be only an "approximate" symmetry. Despite this, many physicists today still worship at the altar of symmetry. And yet whether "approximate symmetry" or "chaotic attractors" or some other mechanism, if there did not exist some means of introducing repetition into reality, we could never have math or language, as nothing would be stable enough to support objective terminology.

I would caution you, when reading my essay, not to confuse my theme with Wheeler's "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." My approach is based on analyzing the fact that a universe which contains consciousness *does* exist. And, when you note that Shannon's view "clearly refers to human knowledge" and that "nature does not know anything", I would agree, by distinguishing between "awareness" and "knowledge", the first of which occurs in the "now" while the latter is "representational" and assumes information. [I'm cautioning you not to dismiss my essay as anthropomorphic!]

As I believe you know, I tend to agree with your approach to complex versus real numbers, subject to the quoted caveat in the middle of your page 6. And I find absolutely fascinating your remark that "something like the commutation relation that is missing in R might not at all have any meaning in reality." My intuition says you may be right!

Finally, your mention of Weaver's qualifications on information and the fact that no counterpart exists in physics, is completely missed by 'it from bit' proponents. You did not miss it.

Eckhard, upon a first, close, reading of your essay, I find nothing I would disagree with, which makes your essay unique in this regard. Erudite, informative, and immensely entertaining. Probably your best essay yet and certainly one of the best 2013 entries. Congratulations.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Eckard,

This is a truly fine essay. It is so well crafted, I lost the sense that I was reading rather difficult scientific material, and I found myself openly gaining deep insights into exiting truths I had never even thought of previously.

As a decrepit old realist, may I just make a couple of real comments here? I know that here and now are absolutes of location and time, so I know that they are the only real location and real time that could exist, once.

Is the Universe real? Yes

Is information real? No

Eckard

Einstein's concept of now (ie the present, when a physical state is existent) is based on Poincaré's notion of simultaneity. This asserts that the times of any given occurrences were simultaneous if the 'local times' when they happened are the same, once sychronised (ie in 'common time'), except if in the "immediate proximity" (a distance not explained).

1905, Part 1, Section 1, para 8:

"Thus...we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous," or "synchronous," and of "time." The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock."

This is wrong. Events either occurred at the same time, or they did not. Timing involves reference to a single constant rate of change, otherwise the system is useless. This is why timing devices, which just 'tell' the time (ie what the reference is at that time), are synchronised. What varies is the the time of receipt of a light based representation of the event, which is fundamentally dependent upon spatial relationships. Existence is, by definition, the present, and occurs independently of any sensing of it. The past having ceased to exist, and the future does not exist. Of course, one needs to understand that what exists at any time (ie is the reality at that time) is a unique physically existent state of whatever is involved. Thinking in terms of objects is wrong, because these are conceptualisations which do not exist in this form (except whatever constitutes the elementary types).

It is no wonder that Einstein got concerned about 'now'.

Paul

Paul,

You wrote: "Of course, one needs to understand that what exists at any time (ie is the reality at that time) is a unique physically existent state of whatever is involved"

The reality of that time cannot be the reality of any time. Otherwise, you are close to being correct except you omitted one essential detail. The unique can only happen once. It is reality that is unique, once.

Eckard,

A good essay and accurate review with some perceptive assessments. Another victory for realism over the fantasies emerging from careless initial assumptions.

I particularly liked your expose of Wheelers "...inclination of attributing physical reality to any mathematical model." which is a general theme I go to the roots of in my own essay.

I also in a more realistic way agree and falsify his attempted logic in the;

"... delayed choice thought experiment. Wheeler obviously intended to demonstrate that his speculation about time-reversal is justified."

I hope and expect to see you higher up in the results this year. I also hope you may better understand the compatible propositions of my own essay, which I pit against the Bell Inequality mathematics and so called 'weak measurement' experimental analysis, which is actually just strong measurement hidden by statistics.

A 'rotational asymmetry' is predicted is experimental findings, disproving the EPR case is a 'paradox'. When digging I found Alain Aspects 99.9% discarding of results was due to finding a 'rotational asymmetry' inconsistent with theory he was trying to prove! I thought it sensational, but it seems few really understand Bells set up. I hope you do and look forward to your comments.

One last thing on yours; Perhaps your comment "if the suggested distinction between abstract and measurable time is correct" applied in a slightly different way may suggest the arbitrary 'apparent' as well as Proper' Time seen via signals from co-moving clocks. I had no space to discuss the proposition that once emitted, the 'signal' state (i.e. wavelength) may be altered by optical interactions (Doppler shift etc.) so apparent time rate changed with no effect on the real clock speed that produced it. Can you rationalise that?

Very well done for a pertinent essay. I do also hope you're keeping well.

Very best of luck.

Peter

Joe

"The reality of that time cannot be the reality of any time"

This is what I said. The reality is what is existent at any given time. What you have failed to understand, and I have been explaining to you on your blog, is that objects do not exist as we conceive them. They are the result of a definition based on superficial physical characteristics, which we then conceive of as 'it changes'. Whereas, physically, these objects are a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states of whatever comprises them, which just look as if something is persisting in existence from that higher level of conception. And then we rationalise alteration by asserting that 'it' has changed, which is a contradiction, because if it has changed, what is now it is no longer what was it.

In other words, there is no such thing in existence as St Pauls, your toe, etc, etc. There just appears to be a similarity in physical presence over time. Physically, these things are different, ie in a different physical state, and indeed comprising of somewhat different elementary matter, at any given time.

Paul

[PS: I have responded here, but if you have any further comment please continue this on your own blog, as it is a distraction to the point being made which was about Einstein]

Paul,

Because you lost the argument on my blog, I am going to respond here. I have never "conceived" of my toe. You apparently do not know the difference between conception and perception, just as your version of existentialism has prevented you from understanding what the word last actually means.

Dear Sir,

Your essay is as much a pleasure to read, as it is conceptually very close to our essay published on May 31, 2013, though both approach the subject from totally different perspectives. Thus, though there are some differences in our analysis, the final outcome is strikingly the same.

"Analyticity implies the directional aspect of causality and vice versa" may not be a correct statement. Consider an example: A B → C D.

Here a force makes A interact with B to produce C and D. The same force doesn't act on C and D as they don't exist at that stage. If we change the direction of the force, B acts on A. Here only the direction of force and not the interval between the states before and after application of force (time) will change and the equation will be:

B A → C D and not B A ← C D.

Hence it does not affect causality. There can be no negative direction for time or cause and effect. However, "Time scale can be shifted without any restriction", as we chose it.

The concept of minus and plus infinity is mathematically void. Mathematics is related to numbers, which is a property of particles by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Depending upon the times of perception, many can be 2,3,4....n. Zero is the temporal absence at "here-now". We must have prior knowledge of the object labeled as zero to perceive its absence. Hence neither positive nor negative signs could be assigned to zero. Infinity is like 1 - without similars. But while the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. Hence it is not a number. If it passes through zero, then we can perceive at least one end of it. But zero is absence at "here-now". Thus, it produces a contradiction. In infinity cannot pass through zero. Complex numbers are not physical. You have correctly pointed out that "They vanish with correct transformation back into the domain of reality, i.e., positive real values". Hence they cannot be used in programming.

We have shown in various threads here and elsewhere that division by zero is not infinity, but leaves the number unchanged. This would solve many problems of current physics. Space and time are examples of infinities that coexist. We use arbitrary segments of these infinities. Whatever can be measured as effect is past, which continuously gets converted to cause whose effect will be the future. Hence we cannot control past and cannot know future. Present is only the fleeting interface between the two. Yet, it is most important to the observer because everything "happens" - perceived - only at here-now, because it is the only parameter that is ever changing and when measurement can be taken, whereas past is frozen and future is non-existent. Consciousness goes beyond time and space in a self-recreating world. We have described its mechanism in many threads.

We agree that mathematical space is different from physical space. Mathematics measures only the numbers of steps in an interaction, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph - the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

The left hand side of every equation depicts free-will, as we are free to change the parameters as we want. The right hand side of every equation depicts determinism, as the outcome will follow a fixed pattern subject to some special conditions signified by the equality sign.

To know or understand or solve something is to predict its behavior in a given situation, when such prediction matches observed behavior. Something makes meaning only if the description remains invariant under multiple perceptions or measurements under similar conditions through a proper measurement system. In communication, as in perception, it is the class or form that remains invariant as a concept. The sequence of sound in a word or signal ceases to exist, but the meaning remains as a concept. In Nature, same atoms (or numbers signifying objects) may combine differently to produce different objects. The concept arising out of each combination acquires a name (word, message) that remains invariant through all material changes and even when they cease to exist. Since the past is frozen and future is non-existent, only the past could be measured - hence the result of measurement known. And since past through present is the cause for the future, it can be influenced.

You are absolutely correct in analyzing Wheeler's view according to which "restriction to yes/no questions ascribes only rational numbers to what he considered reality. This means dichotomy. On the other hand, he needs the trichotomy (smaller, equal to, or larger than) of real numbers as to arrive at complete sets of vector spaces and in particular singularities. Given there are only yes/no questions in reality; doesn't this preclude real singularities?" More information in this regard can be seen in our essay.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

You are justified in your sarcasm because you have correctly pointed out the cause of our gap in communication. Scientists look at everything from ontological perspective, whereas Engineers like you are more concerned with the problem at hand and ignore universal aspects. For example, we never contradicted the relationship between analycity and causality, but were contradicting the directionality of causality and negative direction of time, which are universal aspects. You ignored it totally and thought that it is a problem of parsimonious use of terminology or our lack of understanding of your technical terms. Similarly, scientists do not accept anything blindly because that is superstition; whereas Engineers follow scientists blindly, because they only apply the theories discovered by Scientists. Hence while you have quoted others, we have analyzed the principles without any bias. Anyone is welcome to prove us wrong.

We have discussed the length contraction in various threads here and till date no one has contradicted us. Since you have quoted Walter Ritz contradicting Einstein, first we give our independent contradiction of Einstein. We quote from our Essay:

"The concept of measurement changed with the problem of measuring the length of a moving rod. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.

Length contraction is only apparent from the stationary frame and cannot be real for the moving frame. What the man on the platform sees cannot affect the train. The passenger on the train will not notice any length contraction. However, time dilation is real in a different sense. All experiments conducted to prove time dilation are defective. Data from the first experiment available in US naval archives proves that it was fudged. Time dilation has meaning only in relative terms of cyclic evolutionary sequences. The evolutionary cycles are different for different categories or different species of the same category. Their evolution over universal time (Einstein's clock at A) can lead to comparative time dilation.

In communication, length contraction or time dilation has no direct bearing on the final outcome. Yet, the individual letters in a word or the individual words in a sentence submerge their sovereignty to the final meaning. Further, the same concept can be communicated by using long or short words or sentences that take different time to pronounce or write. When the compiler translates the code into assembly language or the assembler converts the assembly language into computer code or the computer executes them into a series of 'on's and 'off's, the effect of these concepts are evident."

We have also analyzed these points in response to queries in our thread and other threads. Till date no one has contradicted us. You are welcome to prove us wrong.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

We have discussed the speed of light in our essay.

Regards,

basudeba

It would help if you both worked off SR as defined by the man himself. Then you would realise that there is no issue here. SR is Einstein's attempt to resolve what he saw as the potential irreconcilability between his two postulates of 1905. And it does, in so far as, if there is light then the only physical circumstance which accommodates the two concepts is that defined in SR, ie what can be characterised as stillness/nothing is happening. The point is that there was no observational light in Einstein. Nobody observed anything, because there was nothing to observe with. SR is an irrelevant hypothetical statement. His relativity, irrespective of what he meant it to be, is an assertion of time variance in the occurrence of existence. Which is nonsense. The time variance is in the receipt of light, which is a physically existent representation of that occurrence. But to be able to receive something, it needs to exist. That is, please do not try to see with lightening!

Paul

Paul

Hello Eckard,

Shannon's view "We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it" jumped out at me as analogous to my essay's observer/observation approach that revealed a Fibonacci pattern.

In my case it would be: - We know some information but cannot reveal it. We reveal some information but cannot collect more.

I already suggested an arrow of time from this, but your essay has further helped make it relevant given the Shannon analogy.

Thoroughly enjoyed reading it - thanks for a great essay!

Antony