Alexei
congratulations on writing a winning essay -- well, definitely one of the winners. I read it back in June and forgot about it with all this brouhaha going around -- until being reminded by one of the posts I saw just recently. A pleasure to read such a work.
You name suggests you may be originally from Russia? (you don't have to reply, if you don't want to; just curious)
well done! :)
-Marina
Dear Alexei,
again a very interesting essay with avery clear view.
I agree completely that the measurement problem of QM is a central point in physics. The central concept is the observer. You gave a definition with which I can agree. I also try to tackle this problem. Maybe you have interest to read my essay ?
If you see the measurement as a sequence of results then you can obtain an indeterministic sequence: there are non-algorithmically constructed sequences.
Best wishes for the contest
Torsten
Dear Alexei,
According to my friend Amazigh M. HANNOU you did an excellent anaysis of the it-bit problem. Myself I should spend more time in understanding your very professional essay, I promise to try after the context.
Meanwhile I am promoting your excellent ideas.
Hopefully you will be convinced by my approach as well.
All the best,
Michel
Monsieur,
Merci pour votre mot. Votre essai m'a semblé très intéressant et j'ai passé du temps à réfléchir à ce que vous dites.
Cordialement,
Alexei Grinbaum
Dear Alexei,
I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.
I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.
You can find the latest version of my essay here:
http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf
(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).
May the best essays win!
Kind regards,
Paul Borrill
paul at borrill dot com
Dear Alexei,
Very beautifull, well written, well documented and well thought essay. You see the problem of it from bit vs bit from it in its full complexity. I particularly like the epistemic loops and the two ways to cut them.
Best wishes,
Hi Alexei---
Nice essay, quite clearly written. It still doesn't make me feel quite comfortable with the arbitrariness of where the cut is put. I do feel there is something about the quandaries of quantum theory, for instance this arbitrary cut, that is "epistemologically natural", but I don't think we yet have enough of a prinicipled understanding of it. I have some hope that "reconstruction", not necessarily in the usual operational framwork, but thinking also more deeply about how measurements are actually carried out using physical resources, and in space and time, might get us a better understanding, not just of the structure of the theory, but about what aspects of reality, and our epistemological immersion in it, are manifested in the structure of quantum theory. I quite agree that that does not mean we should expect an account in terms of standard notions of causality or the nature of external objects, some of which concepts may be "wired" in our brains and misleading with respect to our now far-flung physical investigations and activities. I tend to think that your general view that "it from bit AND bit from it" are both important in understanding the nature of quantum theory, is correct... but we may also have to transcend (as I mentioned in my essay, and as Marcus Appleby discusses at greater length in http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.7381 , which I recommend highly) the notions of "it" and "bit" (both of which Appleby would perhaps describe as Cartesian).
So, you give a compelling picture of "the current situation in quantum theory" and epistemology... but I still feel that the situation you describe is puzzling and augurs further physical and philosophical discoveries, which indeed may turn out to be one and the same discovery...
I enjoyed your thought-provoking essay... excellent job.
Howard
Hi Howard,
Thanks for your comments and the link to Appleby's paper. I agree that we shouldn't take the arbitrary cut as epistemologically satisfactory or final: theories may evolve, and this without embracing the ambition to explain everything within one theory. So the epistemic cut I'm talking about in the paper doesn't have to coincide with the Heisenberg-Dirac-von Neumann but between the observer and the observed in quantum mechanics.
Actually, I'm working myself on trying to understand the observer in informational terms, which has been missing from many reconstructions so far. I'm not sure I follow you when you add space and time as conditions under which measurements are "actually carried out". In my view, one of the key lessons of quantum theory is that it's free of space and time - and this is good! Non-locality means that we yet understand only very little about the connection between quantum theory and spatial structures; not to mention that time in quantum theory is only a parameter of algebra automorphisms.
Anyway, thanks for your comments - and thanks for your essay, too, which I read a month ago. I liked it, but I dislike very much the mad situation on this website and the rush for completely ungrounded ratings, so I'm quite unhappy with this contest and the way FQXI managed it. Had I known, I wouldn't have submitted anything in the first place. But for sure we'll see each other soon at some event and have a chance to talk.
Cheers,
Alexei
Looks like I jinxed you. Sorry about that. I really thought yours was one of the best essays on the topic.
Alexei
I am very disappointed not to see your name among the finalists and, because of this, I am embarrassed to be there myself. I sincerely thought that your essay was one of the very best if not the best in this contest. I saw your post above and you are right, the atmosphere here was not conducive for advancement of refined and sensitive people like yourself. But hopefully it will change one day.
-Marina
Thank you.
Hi Alexei,
Since now we ended up next to each other, and I read about your disappointment, I thought I should mention the following. This is my third FQXi contest (2nd, 3rd,5th) and it was getting worse and worse every time, until it *completely* deteriorated this time. And the reason is quite simple: complete neglect of the organization.
The two fellows that started the FQXi shop (especially the "Scientific Director") wanted to have the contests for the sole PR purpose, and they have completely neglected their organization, which eventually led to the results you see. Their main interests are getting money (mainly from the Templeton Foundation) for the grants and fancy conferences free for the members.
After the first two contests I participated in, I was so upset that I said to myself no more. But after an almost two-year break and seeing a topic I really liked, unfortunately, I decided to 'forget' about my previous experience.
Anyway, enjoy the rest of the summer.
Cheers,
--Lev
