Essay Abstract

It is tempting to think that, once we have understood scientific theories behind \textsc{it} and \textsc{bit}, it will be easy to fix an order of precedence between them. I argue that it will not. Contrary to appearances, a key to softening this problem of precedence is to be found in the meaning of \textsc{from}, understood as rigorous reconstruction, and that of \textsc{or}, which in the framework of epistemic loops is put on a par with \textsc{and}. But, as anyone would expect, I begin with \textsc{it} and \textsc{bit}, suggesting that we adopt an attitude of epistemological modesty and treat the observer as informational agent.

Author Bio

Alexei Grinbaum is a researcher at CEA-LARSIM located in Saclay near Paris. His main interest is in the philosophy of physics and the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File

Alexei,

I found this essay to be an engrossing read. Meticulous care has been taken in its construction. There is no overstatement, and the styling is impeccable.

May I please make one comment? You wrote: "Still one feature unites all observers: Whatever they do, they do it to a system." I contend that one real Universe is unique, once. That means that everything real in the real Universe can only be unique, once. Although the feature that might unite all abstract observers could be abstractly systematic more than once, no real observers could ever be united because no system can ever be unique. As no system can attain uniqueness, all systems must remain unrealistic.

    Dear Alexei,

    A most interesting essay! If I understand you correctly, you are considering the case of what will remain of a physics theory "if one clears away its human inventors and users," based on the assumption that our ideas of physical reality are primarily a function of the way our brains are wired. Thus the first thing you throw away are ontological bases for theories. You conclude that only a mathematical basis of theories remains.

    This appears to be a Platonic belief that math exists in some extra physical realm. An alternate perspective, developed in my essay, considers that, in the sense of Wheeler's "Participatory Universe", we are immediately connected to the physical universe (i.e., we sense gravity directly), while mathematics is a creation of the organization of our brains. In this case, if brain-based ideas are removed, then only physical reality, but no mathematical "principle" remains. This seems to cover the extreme cases.

    A Platonic mathematical universe seems reflected in your statement: "in theoretical physics the axiomatic method must be separated from the Greek attitude that axioms repeat truths about reality." And "the axiomatic method has become a powerful tool for mathematical research."

    My approach is based on the fact that I know how to derive math from matter, but I cannot imagine how to derive matter from math, and Occam's razor seems to argue against the separate independent existence of math and matter. Given a set of measurement numbers, an algorithmic procedure based on entropy maximization will produce a feature vector, with no ontological assumptions, and the space of such feature vectors is the typical basis of physical theories. The numbers and their mathematical manipulation, up to and including the derivation of the feature vectors, all are generated by material circuitry. Similarly, the fact that you discuss, that physics is observer independent (in the sense you describe) "only because quantum mechanics uses abstract mathematics..." is also compatible with matter generated math.

    You have an interesting discussion that concludes that we do not have the "precise physical constitution" of the observer. This too is compatible with matter-generated-math as there are countless ways to design mathematical circuits, all of which will produce the same numeric outputs. You conclude that "the defining characteristic of the observer" is that "it must have information about some physical system." In my model this information is equivalent to energy transferred from the system to the structure of the observer, and thereby 'registered', becoming information. In other words wholly dependent on the 'it' of the observer structure. The 'bit' is the result that comes into existence only when a threshold is crossed. This is in agreement with your remark that "this information fully or partially describes the state of the system."

    So we are both led to the conclusion that "An observer is a system identification algorithm."

    I was surprised when our different assumptions converged on this point. You note that the observer can be flesh or silicon. Like you, I treated a robot developing a theory of physics, based on measurement, for the same purpose of eliminating human preconceptions. It is fascinating that you appear to start with the reality of a mathematical world and the reality of information, while I deny both, and we reach an important common conclusion. This became much clearer with the development of your schema based on where one cuts the loop.

    You say "Each way of cutting the loop fixes one part of the loop in the position of derived concepts [...] while the other part becomes a given, ..."

    You have done a superb job in developing this formalism. Congratulations!

    You say, "it is mandatory to cut the loop, which makes it impossible to close within one theory the gap between the observer and the observed." This might also be considered the inherent boundary between the subjective and the objective. But where does one cut the loop? The system cannot choose, only the observer can choose. Based upon awareness that metric overlays on reality are mental constructs, and based on subjective awareness of the reality of gravity, I choose to interpret physics as real and information as a derived concept. I congratulate you again on having developed the schema and I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I enjoyed yours.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Alexei

      "On what foundation, then, can we build physical theories?"

      On the basis of what is manifest (either directly or via proper hypothesis) to us, how the physical process enabling this operates, and how that which is manifest must occur. That is by avoiding assertions which have no experienceable validity, ie are beliefs about the nature of existence.

      Paul

        Dear Joe Fisher,

        Thanks for your comment. One point I'm trying to make in the essay is that science does not warrant claims about what is real; at best it tells us what is not. Another convention at the foundation of physical theory is that experiments are repeatable, which implies (to use the language of analytic philosophy) that unique tokens are identified as belonging to one type, or concrete $C^*$-algebras as being one and the same abstract algebra, or many copies being "one system".

        Best wishes,

        Alexei Grinbaum

        Dear Edwin Eugene,

        Thank you for your comments. There is no claim in my essay about Platonism. Indeed I am not choosing between object realism, property realism, structural realism or Platonic idealism, i.e. the realism of mathematical entities (which is close to structural realism in some of its forms). I believe that science does not warrant claims about "reality", only about what is posited and what can be derived within a physical theory. There exists no proof of any predicate in the form "X is real", while one can show the opposite: "X cannot be held as fundamental".

        As for the question about where one cuts the loop, there is no one answer to that. The point of the loop view is that there can be many cuts, each of which leads to a different sort of theory. No one loop cut is better than the other: the job they are doing is different in every case. I understand that you prefer to posit something you call "matter" and to derive information. This is perfectly fine; but a different loop cut is equally possible.

        Is the loop cut the same as the cut between the objective and the subjective? I don't think so. In the Husserlian debate, of course, phenomenology is central, but my loop view is purely epistemological, i.e. it involves the ensemble of theories of (scientific) knowledge. All predicates are formulated in the third person and there are no first-person claims. Still, as you noticed, I support the attempts to analyze the connection between physical theory and observer-dependent point of view - in a scientific way. We lack mathematics for that, but I am hopeful that such mathematics will be found.

        Best wishes,

        Alexei Grinbaum

        Paul,

        Thank you for your comment. I don't find anything to disagree with in what you have said. However I'd be careful not to trust what is directly manifest as fundamental building blocks of physical theory.

        Best wishes,

        Alexei Grinbaum

        Dear Alexei,

        Thank you for clarifying your position. It is more neutral than I assumed. I believe you have achieved a remarkable accomplishment, illuminating the essential arbitrariness of what is given and what is derived, when one is stuck only with logic. Fortunately I'm not stuck only with logic but possess awareness, experience, sensations, and knowledge. I can understand your goal, and find absolutely no fault with it. In fact I strongly approve it. But I have a different goal, which has been (for over half a century) to understand reality (to the extent possible). From my perspective, your development satisfies each of our separate goals.

        I fully understand that different loop cuts are possible, but I must cut the loop in the place it makes sense, based on my life as I have lived it. Others, it is clear, will make different sense out of it. You rightly proclaim that it is not (currently) amenable to a scientifically justifiable choice. From my perspective we will not find mathematics capable of making the choice, and not just because of Godel, but because math is an abstraction, unless one is a Platonist, which, as you point out, is not claimed or supported by your essay.

        From the perspective of the institution of science, which is inherently third-party, you show a scheme which does not fix an order of precedence. From my perspective, which is inherently first party, it is obvious what the precedence is. A win-win situation!

        Thank you again for your delightful essay. It should place highly in this contest.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Alexei

        Why? Leaving aside any 'adjustments' that are proved to be needed (eg an effect on light), we have nothing else. That is the point, physical existence is what is potentially knowable to us, which is the result of a physical process. Which is why your response to Joe "science does not warrant claims about what is real; at best it tells us what is not", is wrong. The reference for scientific validity is correspondence with what is potentially (we may not realise that potential)knowable, not any alternative possibility that can be conceived. It is therefore possible to know what is real. Real being what is real for us, not what might occur but there is no evidence (either direct or hypothetical) that we can have any knowledge (ie awareness) of).

        Paul

        Dear Alexei,

        "I support the attempts to analyze the connection between physical theory and observer-dependent point of view - in a scientific way. We lack mathematics for that, but I am hopeful that such mathematics will be found."

        I consider a seemingly lacking mathematics already found. In order to explain my different position, let me use the chicken-egg metaphor. You and most of the other contemporary physicists are treating it as a loop. Of course, one can cut the loop arbitrarily. After abstraction from reality, one cannot distinguish between a chicken and its ancestors.

        Being an old engineer, I prefer to rather attribute repeating features of reality to a spiral. This implied that I had to look for related flaws in loop-based models. I tried my best to summarize some topic-related ones here. Any serious criticism might be helpful and is welcome.

        Unfortunately, Pentcho Valev declared himself in "Faster than light" too exhausted as to take issue.

        Best,

        Eckard

        Dear Sir,

        You have beautifully analyzed the foundations of physical theories. Most of it are in agreement with our essay published on May,31.

        However, regarding reconstruction, you must not forget that mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. Further a mathematical structure is not the same as a physical structure.

        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.

        As you also agree, if multiple runs of experiments on strictly identical systems or different measurements over space and time of the same system return the same result, the underlying commonality is real. This commonality has three characteristics: it exists over time and space, it is measurable and the result of measurement communicable to other observers. The last two are different aspects of perception: the first restricted to the mechanism of observation and the second universal to all observers. Thus, this definition is free from any bias. Measurement is a process of comparison between similars, one of which is called the unit. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Thus, perception, a characteristic of the observer, is time invariant. This differentiates the observer from the observed, which is subject to time evolution. In this view, the human body is not the observer, but only an observable or instrument of observation.

        It is true that there is a split between the observer and the observable, which are linked through observation. But both exist independently. While the observable exists and evolves on its own, the observer only reports its state when observed. Without observation, he cannot know the "present state". Since the result of measurement is used at other times while the object continues to evolve in time, the result of measurement is given a label as a concept and is given a name (word). The meaning assigned to the concept remains invariant in time. When the observer gets a result similar to the concept, it identifies the object with that concept. This is perception.

        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.

        According to the Church-Turing principle, every piece of physical reality can be perfectly simulated by a quantum computer. But there is difference between Reality and its simulation. Formulating a Theory of the observed (or potentially observable) events means building up a network of input-output connections between them. In a causal theory, these connections are causal links. In computer-programming language, the events are the subroutines and the causal links are the registers where information is written and read. In physical terms, the links are the systems and the events are the transformations. The computer does not function naturally, but we design and write the algorithm for the computer to function. Hence it will be a creature of our ideas and limitations - GIGO - garbage in garbage out.

        You are welcome to read our essay and comment on it.

        Regards,

        basudeba

        Alexei,

        Excellent analogy of the complexities involve with our current understandings of how effects (it) cause effects (bit). You hit it on the nail with your "loop views"! To me Figure 1, describes effectual causality and Figure 2, describes causality. Very insightful essay I must say.

        I too have found the stepping back of the whole argument fruitful in my experimental findings which unify gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministic force. What I have learned from these findings are reflective of your loop analysis which I discuss in my essay. I hope you will have a chance to review it.

          Hi Alexei,

          I was wondering what theory of truth is compatible with your views on the nature of science. It looks like the correspondence theory would be problematic for you. Are you a coherentist, or something else?

            Hi Matt,

            Good to hear from you - and thanks for an interesting question. I don't have a well-developed position with regard to a theory of truth. Certainly not correspondence, you're right. I guess I subscribe to elements of coherence theories and minimal theories; this is in the following sense. Minimal, because I don't take "X is true" to be informative about the state of the world, but only about the ensemble of propositions that render theoretically meaningful both X and the proof that X. This partly resembles redundancy theories of truth, because I refuse to extend the significance of "X is true" beyond a certain limit, which is set by this ensemble. Within the ensemble, coherence theories fully apply. Thus "X is true" cannot be a random statement and cannot be decided on a whim, but must agree with other theoretically meaningful propositions. So I'd provisionally say that my position is a combination of minimal+coherence theories, but it would be great to discuss this further.

            Cheers,

            Alexei

            5 days later

            Dear

            Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

            So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

            I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

            I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

            Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

            Best

            =snp

            snp.gupta@gmail.com

            http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

            Pdf download:

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

            Part of abstract:

            - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

            Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

            A

            Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

            ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

            Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

            . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

            B.

            Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

            Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

            C

            Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

            "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

            Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

            1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

            2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

            3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

            4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

            D

            Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

            It from bit - where are bit come from?

            Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

            ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

            Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

            E

            Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

            .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

            I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

            Dear Alexey,

            Your judgements is really excellent, but I think we can perceive the topic question some more lightly, as a good joke only! The elementary morphological analyze of the question is enough to be understand contentless of it. The main argues of most people is politically by essence - "Weller says something in his time!" This up on his responsibility whatever he say, but I want thinking by my own brain!

            I hope my work will interesting for you - as philosopher!

            I will thankfully to get your opinion.

            Sincerely,

            George

            ESSAY

            Alexei,

            I found your comments relating to Figure 2 of your essay to be relative to the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded.

            Please review my essay to confirm if my findings validates your suggestions as to how to move forward. I believe my findings may have provided the experimental validation of your premise, see:

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

            Best wishes,

            Manuel

            Alexei,

            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

            11 days later

            Dear Alexei,

            Thanks for writing an enjoyable essay to read.

            I think your Loop Cut diagrams to sum up an interesting and intuitive idea. This diagram, is a clear and concise way to sum up the essay contest's question, so top marks for being relevant. Also I found your arguments interesting and well explained.

            Also, observers as informational agents was well thought out. I wonder if we might find common ground - please take a look at my essay if you get time.

            Best wishes,

            Antony

            Dear Alexei,

            I think you are helping to bring about a consensus for a new paradigm. you bring about which I also espouse that nature is infinite that covers from nothing to infinity. No finite law can tame nature and restrict it to behave accordingly. Nature is infinite and it does in infinite ways or covers yes and no and all in between. An observation localize what he/she observed temporarily. Nature has been known to give this observer what he/she is looking to find. In brief, I agree with you that it must be circular or ouroboros way like a snake eating its own tail. i use this metaphor to express KQID Ouroboros Equations of Existence: Ξ00☷ = ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) = KbΘln2 = hf = pc mc^2 = p^2/2m U(iLx,y,z) = 4πGρ- Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = (8πG/c^4)Tμν - Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = Τμν = E = A S ⊆ T.. You wrote that I concur: "Each way of cutting the loop fixes one part of the loop in the position of derived concepts, or results, of a theory, while the other part becomes a given, i.e. it belongs to the domain of this theory's meta-theory. If the loop is cut differently, these two parts can exchange roles: explanans becomes explanan- dum, and what has been explanandum becomes explanans. Cutting the only allowed operation, while the form of the loop is preserved; its geometry can- not accommodate the reduction pyramid that descends from less fundamental to more fundamental theories with "stronger postulates". This new schema is circular, which may raise suspicion; however, this circle does not contain a contradiction. On the contrary, the relation between theories becomes that of mutual illumination rather than reduction. Parts of the loop taken as a given for the purposes of constructing one theory become results and derivative con- cepts within the framework of another." Great contribution to science. Please review, comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time.

            Thanks,

            Leo KoGuan