Is a Mathematical Definition of Observation Possible? by Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves

Dear Mr. Alves,

Your highly technical treatise was most absorbing, though in many parts I had difficulty following it. I will therefore state my comments along the broadest lines.

Though there is much that interested me in your exploration of defining observation mathematically, my view is that even if the emergence of random outcomes could be explained and contextualized by reconfiguring the nature of space-time, or in a variety of mathematical ways, the nature of information would remain unchanged: It would still define the Observer's 'patch of reality' at any given moment, and it would continue to do so throughout evolution.

To consider that mathematics can one day capture all of reality is to ignore the perpetual nature of evolution; inadvertently, we then return to the concept of an absolute underlying reality, one that dismisses both the evolution of the Cosmos, and of its Observer.

I consider that we are involved in a distinctive human Cosmos, one that displays a continuous correlation between Bit and It over the course of evolution; in this system, the observer does not interact with the whole field of reality, regardless of how probabilities emerge, or of how mathematical parameters might re-define them.

Physics and Mathematics is the projection of the human mind on to the Cosmos - it will always be this, and it will always be entirely composed of Bits, thus keeping the Bit-It conundrum relevant to any definition of the Cosmos. My interest is, rather, to see how Physics and mathematics might account for the consistent contiguity of Bits and Its at every instant of evolution - whatever the nature of space-time.

It would be interesting, then, if your mathematical definition of observation could be applied to this larger context. Our parameters would then be enlarged considerably, and we would essentially be able to compute our own evolution, and even to control it.

As you can probably tell, this is one of the strands of my essay - which I think you would find interesting for the reasons I've stated.

Yours is a very serious work, one with consequences; I think you will find much to interest you in the Correlation of Bit to It I describe in my essay. Let me know.

All the best,

John

Dear Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves:

I am writing you just because you are a physicist, I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, so I can discuss your essay. I am sending you a summary of my "The deep nature of reality" thinking you may be interest in the experimental meaning of time. So you can decide if you read it or not.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English) "Hawking, A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Dear Daniel,

i just read your entry and found it very clearly written. I don't know much about category theory but your exposition has helped me get a better idea.

It seems to me that potentially there is a challenge with using category theory to help understand the measurement problem. Based on what little that I understand about category theory, it strikes me as most powerful when you start with structure that is already extremely well-understood and then use functors to clarify other less-well understood structures. It seems to me that when it comes to the measurement problem we don't have as yet a well understood physical theory in any realm of physics that could serve as the initial well-understood structure based on which the structural components of a quantum mechanical observation could be mathematical defined. Do you agree with this?

I would like to suggest that in mathematics, however there may be such a structure. In the second half of my entry I mention a principle which already underlies tacitly certain aspects of mathematics which I believe may also underlie quantum superposition and collapse. I have not found any formal mathematical treatment of this principle anywhere and would be very glad if you could take a look at it and share your thoughts with me.

All the best,

Armin

Dear Daniel,

I will read your essay in detail in a week from now.

Mine also deals with a mathematical approach of quantum observations

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Best wishes,

Michel

Dear Daniel

You: I have shown an argument by Barbour last year which shows that the existence of a quantum field does not entail the existence of absolute space

From comments like this, I could deduce that for you the interaction between particles, which are separated by a distance, takes place by means of fields. But you also mention that a field doesn't entail an absolute frame of reference. This of course depends on your vision of a field. From my view, a field is nothing but a state of space itself.

You also claim that the relational approach is a far more powerful approach than the substantial one. That depends on the degree each approach has developed. If you believe so, it's because you are not aware of the advances in the substantial field.

You: Now you claim that because of that, the existence of absolute space is a matter of pure logic. I cannot see that.

There are many physical things that we cannot directly "see" but we have to assume them for the sake of consistency. Some times we can infer them. Electromagnetic waves, antimatter, atoms, the CMB radiation, quarks, etc, were not "observed" but they were predicted, inferred, discovered or assumed. Space conceived as a material substance is inferred for consistency. Just as we inferred and feel time in the same way we inferred space. But the way we inferred it is different. Some follow Leibniz arguing that space is a mesh of relationships and some follow Newton arguing that space is a material substance. Leibniz, Barbour and Smolin are actually talking about localization of objects in relation to one another whereas Newton and me and some others are talking about the substance the world is made of. If you accept that objects are made of matter, then I say that space is also made of matter. I'll give you my idea. Space is a material ocean and particles are actually solitons. Please go to wikipedia and check the sine-gordon equation so you have an idea of what a solition is. If we think that a soliton is an energy packet, we have a solid ground to unify the notions of particle and wave in one concept. Particles and waves can be seen in essence as aspects of solitons. In this scenario a particle is an excitation of the vacuum or space and a field is just a state of the vacuum. Einstein and the relationalists conceive the reality in the opposite direction. They think that space is totally empty and in turn is filled with material particles and fields of any kind. A field in this view is not an state of space or of a carrier and a particle is also an entity different from space. I hold the opposite view. The standard model of particles has already been written in the language of solitions. I hope you get the idea.

With respect to the contradictions in relativity, I'll mention only one just as an illustration of my view. This is a paradox and consists in that we initially have two synchronized clocks at rest. Then at some time one clock is set in motion from point A (origin) to point B as measured in the system of reference of the clock at rest. Thus, for the prime observer in relative motion, the clock at relative rest should appear ticking slowly in its trip from point A' (origin) to point B' (as measured in the prime frame) whereas for the observer at relative rest the clock in relative motion should tick slowly. According to SR, both clocks should tick slowly and when the elapsed time of both clocks is compared at the final points B and B', respectively, both must show the same time. This means that STRICTLY speaking and following the logic of the theory is IMPOSSIBLE to decide whether time dilates or not for one or the other observer. Both observers conclude that time dilates and at the same time their clocks show the same time at points B and B', respectively. This impossibility of decision is due to the fact that in SR there are no absolute frames. If there were an absolute frame, then one would argue that one clock was REALLY in motion, that is, that one clock was in ACTUAL REST and the other in ACTUAL motion. The clock with actual motion underwent time dilation.

I hope you have understood the paradoxical part. Most relativists don't even see it and therefore they deny it. Some others argue that one observer was accelerated, etc. This is not a matter of acceleration but of logic in the theory since motion is not absolute or actual but relative. When motion is not absolute or real, time dilation or length contraction are not actual effects, only apparent effects. That's why SR is a fake, it predicts relative effects but however we experimentally observe ACTUAL effects which are in contradiction with the logic of the theory. Please read the ORIGINAL paper of the experiment of Ives-Stilwell. Stilwell argues in the same direction. Experiments to measure time dilation show real effects whereas the theory predicts apparent effects due to the lack of an absolute frame of reference. The fact that effects are real imply that there exists an absolute frame of reference contrary to the customary view. This is what unfortunately, relativists don't understand and don't recognize.

You also talked about Lorentz invariance. I don't deny it, I accepted, I just argue that one should not exclude the absolute frame among the myriad of frames, that's all. This frame is not superfluous as I've already explained.

You: ...reparametrization invariance..

Indeed you are reparametrizing, swapping t by gamma, and gamma is an arbitrary parameter. With arbitrary physical meaning.

Best Regards

Israel

Mr. Daniel Alves,

the main title of Your essay, attired my attention, and not modestly,

this is my answer : m2v2 m1v1 nMz = 0 .

This simple formula, in my essay is derived by a very simple "shape dynamics".

I would like Your reply about.

See You and My best Regards.

Daniel,

I thought your essay was illuminatingly interesting. I do hope that you will not think me impertinent, but I would like to give my answer to a question you posed.

You asked: " But is the notion of absolute space really indispensible? Newton knew that all he really measured were particle separation rij. Could we make physics dispensing absolute positions?"

I have helpingly listed all of the absolutes the real Universe conforms with in my essay BITTERS:

The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.

One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real "speed" of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

Joe

Dear Daniel,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, 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

Dear Daniel,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, 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

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Daniel, Fonteles - I have already read most of Julian Barbour's publications, but it was nice to see some of his key ideas summarized so nicely here.

I imagine that you might find the concept of subtime [1] a useful addition to your insights.

Kind regards, Paul

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

Hello Daniel,

How did your exams go? Hope it went well!

Best wishes,

Antony