It from Qubit by Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano

Dear Mauro

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. I would like to answer your questions and make some clarifications about your comments. Perhaps our views are not so different in principle.

You: which definitely is not a debate... ...opinion of two matter-realistic persons.

Indeed, it was never meant to be a debate between two opposite views because, as you can see, Alice has a few knowledge of the topic, actually she's not a physicist. In this sense she just represents an ordinary layman as one of the 7 billion on this earth and therefore she is an ordinary realist who thinks that physicists are getting out of their minds believing that the universe is only a huge computer dealing with bits. However, as any other layman who has vague ideas of how science is done, she keeps her mind open to probably accept these unusual ideas insofar as they sound "reasonable" (of course, if her knowledge of the topic is poor, they would not sound reasonable). On the contrary, Bob is a professional physicist who knows how both theoretical physics and science are done. He doesn't swallow all that he hears in the media or even among his colleagues. Although he is open minded, he is also very critical. He then exposes a general point of view of the case. Since what matters in contemporary physics is not to find physical descriptions of observations that satisfy our intuition but only to quantitatively reproduce data with mathematical models, he thinks that whether information or matter are considered as fundamental ingredients of the universe is just a matter of semantics or of convention, or even of commodity. He thinks that information (and even the whole of math) is just another sort of ontology, another mental tool among the myriad of options. However, as many other physicists, he's really worried about the present situation, because he understands that the way (pragmatic) physics has been done in the last century has led physics to an apparent dead end. He reflects that the old way of doing physics, based on ontologies, was so successful and he doesn't find any reason to discard it from science. So he thinks that is worth keeping with this tradition. Since for him, the "it from bit" approach is just another approach, he thinks that is worth continuing with the "bit from it" approach. And to show the power of such approach he gives an example that seems to be promising not only to get out of the present conundrum but also to build a theory that is in agreement with "common sense". The latter offers the advantage that is easily accessible to Alice (and the other 7 billion) because there is no need of changing her mind. So when you say: From this I infer that there is little hope of convincing you. I can only reply that I concur with Bob's view. As you can see he's not realist, he's scientist and open minded. He only sees that the "bit from it" approach has more potential to solve the present problems.

You: What we observe IS NOT what... ...we believe is outside the cave.

In seems that in essence we are in agreement, I'd like to add my view just for completeness. We should recognize that the ontology is constructed in the mind of a person based on the "shadow" alias "raw data". And as I said before, raw data can have many interpretations which depend in general on the theoretical framework where we situate the data. But without a doubt the theoretical framework is constructed from ontologies and/or abstract objects such as math. That's why math is also some sort of ontology. The theoretical framework has no meaning if it has no relation to observations, this is why physics is considered a factual science, otherwise it would be pure philosophy or applied math. The previous lines remind me of the famous subject-object problem from the theory of knowledge which can be summarized as follows: The knowledge of an object is subjected to the appreciation of the subject. In order to know the object the subject has to observe it and the process of observation (as quantum mechanics teach us) affects the pristine state of the object. At the end what we observe is not the object (i.e. reality) but the outcome of the interaction with the object (raw data). Therefore observations (the shadow) constitutes our reality (ontology, whether "real" or "abstract").

You: The shut up and calculate is on the opposite side of operationalism. Thanks for clarifying, I apologize for this, I misunderstood operationalism and confused it with pragmatism.

Thanks for the book recommendation. Indeed, I agree that the notion of particle is expiring and perhaps the quantum cellular automaton extension to QFT is a feasible solution but as I said that doesn't mean that we have to replace the "it" for the "bit". And I would like to insists that it is not necessary to throw out the baby with the bath water. That the notion of the particle needs some amendments is clear but from this it doesn't follow that we have to give up the idea that matter is the essential substance of the universe. I'd like to make clear that although particle is by definition related to matter the opposite is not in general true.

You: About "common sense"... ... explanation of the entanglement.

No yet, but the reconceptualization of particle offers a solution that will eventually lead to a general consensus. Some colleagues are working on this, you'll hear about it soon.

You: Yes, the quantum system--the qubit--is an abstract notion, as it the notion of bit. But nowadays, in the everyday life, it seems more practical than the notion of particle, don't you think?

If we leave the notion of particle untouched, the answer is yes, otherwise it's no.

Finally, I'd like to congratulate you in advance because I'm sure you are again one of the winners.

Best Regards

Israel

Dear Israel,

Thank you for your thorough reply well clarifying all your points. We agree on one relevant issue: that the notion of particle of current field theory needs a radical change.

Thank you also for your kind compliments.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Professor D'Ariano,

I am sorry for the delayed answer. It is not because I am afraid of discreetness. I will try to explain some points. In my concept (as you know) a particle is only a (Gaussian type) spacetime deformation so it can be called a quasi-quanta because Gaussian distribution is continuous however in good approximation it is discrete. We perceive it as discrete.

You claim: "For me everything is (must be) computable." When QM and GR are computable and deterministic, the universe evolution (naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic. It does not mean that computability and determinism are related. Roger Penrose proves that computability and determinism are different things. So the actual universe is computable during Lyapunov time but its evolution is non-computable.

And later on: "However, essentially my whole philosophy, or scientific methodology if you want, is that I like to assume the minimum number of principles, principles that are almost indisputable, as the axioms of geometry". I fully agree. So I have proposed only one universal scale-invariant metric.

Best regards and still good luck!

Dear Physician,

Mass ratio of neutrons and protons is fundamental in physics.

Maybe you do not have time to read essay of unknown authors. I encourage you, therefore, allow you to comment on the very essence of following formula:

[math]\gamma= 2^{(cy+p+3t)/(2+2a^{2}m)}=1.0013784192[/math]

Where mathematical constant are:

[math]2\pi=6.2831853, t=log(2\pi,2)=2.6514961295, cy=e^{2\pi}= 535.4916555248 [/math]

Physical constants:

[math]a=1/\alpha=137.035999074, \mu=1836.15267245,m=log(\mu,2)=10.8424703056[/math]

Also:

[math]p=log(Mu/mp,2)=cy/2-(\mu/a+1)/(\mu/a+2)-1=265.8107668189[/math]

An important physicist said it was a coincidence, or perhaps just a curiosity. Perhaps you feel the same. My opinion is opposite. I think that in terms of, such a significant relationship physicist should have an attitude.

Greetings Branko

Dear Mauro,

Given that my Essay proposed a small change to quantum theory -- eliminating "collapse" -- I challenged your expressed opinion "that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little."

Thinking that this would be the best place to discuss our differences, and given your status as an FQXi-member, I'm naturally disappointed at your continuing avoidance of the issue.

For the record, and doubting that our views are in contraposition, I did not request you to referee my essay.

Sincerely; Gordon Watson.

Dear Giacomo

You have a similar approach as Fotini. Can you give some similarity and differences with her approach?

Your essay demands more knowledge of supporting papers. You give visualization with Alice, Bob ... Can you explain and visualize, where the quantum physics is in this example. This can be very useful.

You also write that metric from Quantum celluar automata (QCA) cannot be Pytagoras', except with inclusion of Gromov. But, what if we say that QCA metric is microscopically random. In this case, I think, metric can be also Pytagorean.

You address only ''physical'' level of ontology. In this level I agree with you, that ontology doesn't exist. I also claim that space is emergent. But, in my essay I added also consciousnss into physics. I think that ontology of qualia (It) cannot be simply explained with ''bit''. By my opinion, this is the essential ontology of physics. But I agree that it should be simplified, and clearly connected with physics.

my missing messages:

.

Caro bellisimo professore,

ho lasciato un post l'altro ieri su con un paio di questioni. Forse non lo avete visto?

And the post it refers to is this:

.

Caro professore D'Ariano,

Thank you so much for your gracious comments and high rating of my essay! This was a very nice surprise and coming from a distinguished professor like you -- and! the entrant most likely to win this contest -- was on the seventh heaven!

And thank you for reading and commenting on the essays by Carolyn Devereux and Maria Carrillo-Ruiz (and by the way, I'm not a Dr in either physics nor medicine, but Carolyn is a PhD in physics and Maria, a master). Speaking of coincidences --or oddities in random distributions-- their two essays were uploaded one after the other (topics # 1892 & 1893) and Maria was the only one out of 60 essays that I've read so far who, other than you, also spoke about CA, while Carolyn had the best match ever to my personal vision of reality. The only non-random influence here was that I purposefully looked for essays written by women (since we are such a minority here, 7 out of 182, and I'm only worried that I may have missed Asian women, if any, not being able to recognize the femaleness of their names).

.

You wrote, "If you want, the quantum cellular automaton is a kind of ontological monism: space itself is a kind of "quantum stuff", and reality emerges from its dynamics. This maybe similar to also Carolyn Devereux point of view, where the vibration of a primordial substrate may play the role of the automaton, but I should see the complete theoretical mathematical framework to express a thorough opinion. Here I can remark some differences: in my case the notion of energy is quite different from the usual classical and quantum one."

*** First, could you please elucidate some more on how your notion of energy differs from the usual classical and quantum one? ***

Second, I wanted to bring up some far-reaching implications of Carolyn Devereux's model (as I understand it) for your consideration:

1. The model simultaneously contains the aspects of continuum and discreteness -- here discreteness arises our of vibrations of space-time-energy continuum, with the implication that the minimal oscillation (presumably of 'Plank length') is not fixed globally (as for the whole Universe) but is an entirely local phenomenon, just like time is.

2. The model implies that this space-time-energy continuum comprises a medium that, in addition to carrying EMR and gravity, also transmits thus far undiscovered by physics vibrational.. 'force' (-? for the lack of a better term). It may be that the underlying *finer* vibrations in this medium/substrate is what allows the EM waves to propagate. The other implication would be that the resonances of these vibrations, if we're able to detect them, can shed more light on quantum phenomena.

What do you think?

Thank you again for all your feedback -- and I'm reading now your seminal paper on 'Pavia axiomatization' :)

-Marina

I forget to login. I am Janko Kokosar.

Mauro,

I discovered that I forgot to rate your essay. Our viewpoints don't match up but yours is an excellent depiction of a great concept. Did you get a chance to check mine out?

Jim

Dear Mauro,

Thanks for taking the time to explain: I, too, know what it is to be busy.

The small change that I propose for QM is tied to footnote 6, page 6, where I comment that QM's "collapse" is a mathematical short-cut in my theory.

That is: In my theory, "collapse" is definitely not a physical phenomenon. (And it's my understanding that many physicists would like to eliminate "collapse" from QM.)

PS: The Figures for my essay are to be found in my three entries at July 21, 2013 (9.41 - 11.36 GMT).

Trusting that you have a safe and productive trip, with best regards; Gordon

Dear Professor D'Ariano,

(Google translate)

Thanks for the clear answer.

Sorry for the poor translation. I really thought the physicist.

This is another example which shows that in physics clearer understanding via mathematical formulas.

formulas mean nothing to me,

reasonings mean nothing to me,

Experiment, mean nothing to me,

but together mean the physics.

Reasoning regarding the relationship, it is in my essay. Nothing new, but all the others have said before me. The relationship is a result of their reasoning. Your work I left not rated yet of 2 reasons:

I can not believe the quality of the translation of complicated text,

I do not see that reasoning is supported by mathematical expression.

Regards

Branko