James

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.

Good Luck!

Than Tin

Hi James,

I got ready for your essay by getting familiar with "A History of the World Part 1". It was just wonderful.... Mel Brooks is King of comedy!

After reading your essay I got the image of Dolly Parton doing a southern accent saying "That Wheeler chap sure does get carried away" :) Who would have thought a FQXi essay could be so enjoyable.

High marks for King James, Thanks

Don L.

4 days later

Hello James,

Nice critical essay!

I'm critical of quantum mechanics myself*, although I'm even more critical of the community of quantum physicists - I think it's the paradigmatic example of what a scientific community should *not* be.

Anyway, to stimulate further critical thinking I have given your essay a nice rating.

Best regards,

Marcoen

* That is, I find (nonrelativistic) quantum mechanics an elegant theory and I'm compelled to accept that it has some merit, but I do not believe that it is the final answer regarding the fundamental workings of the universe.

    5 days later

    Dear James,

    Well written essay with focussed critique on several speculative anthropomprhic ideas and claims. I enjoyed the satire running through consistently.

    Felt, however, that perhaps you did not want to directly address or take sides on the issue of ontological relativity of Bit or It, which of course is also a position one can take. The implied criticism gives the impression that you are leaning on matter, though!

    Unnikrishnan

      Thanks, Marcoen.

      I believe that diversions from accepted concepts are not an attack on quantum mechanics but perhaps a recognition that our understanding may depend on jumping new hurdles in quantum knowledge. Otherwise we would be maybe a type 2 civilization rather than a type 0.

      Jim

      Dear James

      I read your essay and found it interesting and well structured. It seems that you would like to analyze information from the perspective of consciousness. I'd like to make some comments on your essay.

      You: "participatory anthropic principle," meaning we are necessary to bring the universe into being. Such human activity connections were not considered in the classical world of physics.

      This reminds me of the ancient Greeks who used to say that things only exist when we look at them. Nowadays,we believe that whether we are aware of things or not they exist. This is the view that there is a world or reality independent of whether there are observers or not. The word "participatory" seems to revive the old view of the Greeks.

      You: Accordingly, he said, such entities exist in a probabilistic limbo.. ... classical physics did not see.

      By the middle of the 20th Century, important experiential human events... ...so it was no surprise that we should become active agents in a causal role regarding the mechanical workings of nature,

      I think that classical physics disregarded the fact that the measurement affects the system under study because the measurement, for practical matters, doesn't perturbs the macroscopic system. When experiments were aimed at studying microscopic systems and other no "ordinary" phenomena (such as the splitting of light spectra) the measurements play an important role. And physicists realized that the mechanical picture of the world was not enough. This led to the development of GR and QM, which promote the understanding of the world only in mathematical language. However, very recently new classical experiments are shedding light on the behaviour of the microscopic world, I believe things are gonna change in the following years. The work of McHarris is an example of this. I think that physics not only has a mathematical description but also an intuitive explanation. Please take a look at my essay, and leave some comments.

      With respect to consciousness. Many people think that there are questions that can be answered and others that cannot be answered. I deep thought of the problem of consciousness suggest that this is one of the difficult questions, (just as the question of what is time?). So I think that science is not yet well equipped to give an answer to how consciousness emerges, I think we are very far away from that answer.

      You also mention about the inflaton field, as far as I know, the inflation model is being discarded because it has some many problems (http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=13030079). The Big bang explains several observations but it also still has big problems to solve that has led many physicists (such as Roger Penrose) to claim that the model is totally incorrect.

      Best Regards

      Israel

      Your essay is refreshing because it is one of the few (that I have read) that takes the age-old strong materialist position. Also, your prose was clear and well articulated and free of esoteric maths. At the end of the day, the strong materialist position is not only safe but also comforting. It omits many intriguing New Age-type things that are fun to consider but ultimately tend to lead to confusing and conflicting ideas that promote a god-like ideology among adherents, to borrow your language. My way of phrasing your conclusion would be: There are forces at work that are greater than us and that have been around much longer than us.

      - Kyle Miller

        Dear Jim,

        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

        James, I thought your essay was rather clever in integrating the human element and our own relevance to the cosmos as conscious beings, not just pure disembodied physics. It was also enjoyable to read, like an essay by Medawar or other "interdisciplinary writer." My own essay is at /1610. I found a possible way to distinguish quantum mixtures with the same density matrix, usually thought not possible.