The quantum does not reduce to discrete bits by Roger Schlafly

Dear Dr. Roger Schlafly,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Mean while, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Thank you for your support Paul

Joe

Dr. Schlafly:

In my paper I make an attempt to ID the Dark Mass using evidence supplied to us by our Astronomers, and by using new interpretations.

Jim Wright

A computer with no visible hardware is a consequence of my conjecture, which is specifically how and what things are visible.

Imagine a computer model of fundamental particles, arranged into atoms, molecules, and finally a clock.

As the program runs, the simulated clock runs too.

A faster computer would run the simulated clock faster compares to a slower computer, but an observer inside made of the same types of simulated particles as the simulated clock would not observed any difernce.

In fact, you could pause the whole simulation for a month, the CPUs clock will progress, but the simulated model clock will stop.

If you restart after a month long pause the simulated observer would not realize any time passed.

Likewise the only material that would exist to the simulated observer is stuff like the simulated clock, the hardware of he computer providing the simulated world with simulated particles of matter and light wouldn't be measurable itself

Dear Roger,

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

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.

Roger: interesting essay. I think you are too quick in rejecting the digital computer hypothesis. As I argue in my essay, and my published article "A New Theory of Free Will", quantum uncertainty and other such phenomena are an inevitable emergent result of peer-to-peer networked digital computers. But, I agree with you (and say as much in my essay): not everything can be reduced to digital bits.

Jacek/Roger,

I'd agree that geometry offers many answers - perhaps even leading to a Quantum Gravity theory one day.

Regards,

Antony

Roger,

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

Dear Roger,

Interesting essay and good responses to comments above. On your skepticism of quantum computing, I have a motion/question I am trying to formulate appropriately for those enamored of the Qubit idea:

Given the different examples of binary choices and their physical supports (implicit in the assumption that bits must be carried by Its), e.g. vertical/horizontal polarization = photon; spin up/spin down = electron, etc

And, if existence/non-existence is a binary choice of messages (as has been admitted in evidence, e.g. by Georgina Parry on 28 June), viz."the binary choice of there being an atom or no atom at a location... is like existence or non existence...seems to me a most basic attribute, like 1 and 0. The way I was thinking about it a material structure of some kind is required to carry the absence so that it is communicated. It is a really interesting point though that the existent Bit has a corresponding It but the non existent one does not but the absence can still be information. Thank you for raising that very interesting question."

With the concurrence of Antony Ryan, Roger Granet, Edwin Eugene Klingman, etc

Whereas no material thing can carry non-existence as an information and

Whereas no superposition can be contemplated between existence/non-existence, unlike some other binary choices,

The least that can be said is that this particular information is not a Qubit,

And if this information is what lies at the "very very deep bottom" and "the ontological basement",

I hereby move that all further discussion of Qubits and Quantum computing, where Bits entangle themselves and are superposed on each other should henceforth be suspended unless further evidence contradicting the above are presented.

Best regards and all the best,

'Senator' Akinbo

*You are free to second or modify above motion before presenting to FQXi parliament :).

My essay is here.

Dear Roger,

A very sound and well written thesis for reality which I appreciate and find generally very agreeable.

I must question your 'one liner' summing up von Neumann's position as perhaps a little misleading, with particular regard to the EPR paradox. I discuss this in my essay, including the quote including his proposal that for a consistent QM;

"...as the 'system' and the 'meter' physically interact both must act as quantum mechanical systems, so each 'meter' should 'equally obey the uncertainty principle."

Now this would actually 'preclude' the need for FTL or 'saaad' as the cosine curve would first be produced at each detector. Not the kind of stochastic hidden variable anticipated, but resolving the paradox none the less, and also as Bell anticipated (also quoted).

My essay describes a way of obtaining this which you almost derive yourself, and related to Godel n-valued ('fuzzy') logic. You seem uniquely qualified to analyse this and I'd be most grateful of your comments. You'll also find the essay consistent with your last years thesis ref mathematics, hopefully pinning down a description using the "Dirac Line" or limit of describability.

Very well done for your essay. I'm quite relieved to find I may exist after all! Best wishes for the contest.

Peter

Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Roger - Nice essay, summarizing the state of the union in bits, probability no hidden variables, free will, qubits and black holes.

Before we begin, note that while I rated your essay highly, I am the other side of the fence. I believe that there remains at least one major gap in the analysis done so far of the potential interpretations of quantum theory which deserves our attention, and that is a critical examination of the role of a monotonically increasing irreversible background in time: a fallacy I see committed over and over by those arguing the case for "shut up and calculate" mechanics.

Since I'm homing in on your section on no hidden variables, lets look at Entanglement specifically. Note that: (1) I am not trying to defend hidden variables, (2) We do not have to sacrifice locality, (3) eliminating the background of time and replacing it with by an increment of information time/space with a photon arrival, and a decrement of information time/space with a photon departure. The theory is described in my essay [1] this is the simplest description I can come up with that appears to predict current Bell tests, and yet has a logically consistent ontological description which can be falsified by relatively straightforward experiments.

Before you get on my case, I understand that entanglement is a term normally given to the "non-classical" phenomenon where joint measurements show correlations stronger than what would be "classically explainable". I recognize that using the term entanglement for this "photon hot potato" protocol might provoke reactions from mainstay quantum mechanic's. But unless you or someone else can find a hole in my argument, this protocol in combination with the concept of subtime, would appear to manifest exactly the same results as the purely probabilistic quantum formalism; but might now be considered "explainable" (I hesitate to say classically, because it isn't that either).

The conventional formalism for entanglement says that two distantly separated quantum systems may be "coupled" via Hilbert space, such that measurement of one can suddenly change the state of the other. I have simply tried to describe an insight as to what form that "coupling" might take.

The difficulty with the entangled (pure state of vectors) in the Hilbert space, is that entanglement is seen as only one thing: the impossibility of writing a density matrix as a linear combination of tensor products. There are two basic issues with this. The first theoretical: it appears to be incomplete without including (at least) a backwards evolving quantum state [2]. The second is experimental: it appears to be a classic example of the independence fallacy [3].

This is the biggest reason the essay is completely devoid of mathematical formalism: I wanted to begin with a describable phenomenon, and not with an endless argument over the current formalisms before we can get to the real issues.

Let me know your thoughts.

Kind regards, Paul

[1] http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

[2] Lev Vaidman argues that the Two State Vector Formalism needs to consider backwards evolving quantum state because information provided by a "forwards only" state is not complete. Both past and future measurements are required for providing complete information about quantum systems. [ http://www.pirsa.org/08090067/]

[3] Ken Wharton "Reality, No Matter How You Slice It". http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1846

.