It from Qubit by Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano

Dear Gordon,

Clearly if the Bell theorem would be refuted, it would not be a theorem anymore. Here we are discussing about its interpretation. However, about this, let's judge people from outside.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Satyavarapu

Compliments for the positive feedback that you got.

I will take a look at your essay.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Vladimir

Thank you for your really nice compliments.

I'm curious about your BU. However, I can tell you that only the BCC works for spinors: it is the only lattice compatible with unitariety for a C^2 field. And this is really striking!

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Hoang

Thank you for your post, though I have some difficulties in following your line of thought.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Anton

Thank you for your compliments. There is no problem with teleporting entanglement, since teleportation is entanglement-swapping, you can swap entanglement of the first system and than that of the second system, ending with the two particles entangled. Regarding SR I had already answered to your comment.

Now, regarding your previous post in Matthew thread about SR,

This is similar to what I did: special relativity emerging from a more fundamental theory--the quantum automaton. Dirac is emergent, and Maxwell as well!

Best regards

Mauro

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Anton,

regarding your post in Matthew thread above,

This is similar to what I did: special relativity emerging from a more fundamental theory--the quantum automaton. Dirac is emergent, and Maxwell as well!

Best regards

Mauro

Dear Tom

Thank you very much for your beautiful compliments, and thanks for the citation of the metaphysical realism of Popper espoused from Tarski's correspondence theory of truth. I will come soon to it, since it is a major point for serious science. I also appreciate your last sentence about QT: indeed, I think that it has been rehabilitated to a new mature kind of realism.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Edwin Eugene,

even though I know that you are a realist opponent of my point of view, I very much appreciate your post, since it allows me to peek more inside the realist's mind, and enrich my arguments. From the fact that I need to tell a tale, made of real objects and persons, in order to help the reader have an intuition of what is "emergent space", you conclude that the world must be really made of objects and matter, since we cannot imagine a world made of pure software without having an intuition made of hardware. You are exactly the incarnation of a "matter-realist" (no offense). You say that, ultimately, my tale represents a process of abstraction, from real things toward mathematical notions. You should just consider that space itself in your view is pure abstraction. And the same is motion. But what is substance then? Quantum theory (QT) thought us a really stunning lesson about reality, and to what extent the lesson is amazing can be realized exactly from your post. A physical theory, QT, is now capable of destroying our most obvious intuition: that of "substance". The matter-realistic substitutes of QT, as the Bohm's theory, are indeed very poor from the materialistic point of view: particles are point-like, their trajectories are indiscernible by definition, and they change instantaneously and non-locally when we locally change the boundary. What is the Bohm's potential made of? Is it what you mean by hardware? Are such abstract point-like particles an hardware? Besides, Bohm's theory is doomed to never be able of achieving quantum field theory. We know that a better interpretation of "substance" is a force field, and that what we feel as substance is indeed empty space (the various kind of "radius" for particles are just heuristic notions). What is then pure energy? What is a field? Is it hardware?

What matter for a theory to be good is to minimize the assumptions to explain everything we see, and in the automata theory, we just assume quantum bits in interaction, and very basic principles, as homogeneity, isotropy, locality, unitariety. My point is that we shouldn't be obsessed by our matter-realism, and we should keep our minds open to simplification of theories, and to a corresponding change of our intuition of how the world is made. We should never forget that our intuition--what somebody calls our "ontology"--is only a powerful tool, and, as such, is temporary. Think in this way: you are wearing powerful glasses that hugely improve your vision, to e.g. a Tera-pixel per microsecond. But your brain is not capable of processing such a large amount of information: it synthesized it, and this is what you actually see. What is your ontology now? What you actually see? Or the full Tera-pixel image?

My ontology is a space-time being a huge 3d digital screen made of quantum pixels. You may not like this new ontology, but my seven-year-old daughter loves it. We must be more open minded, not be crystalized on our old way of looking at things, but look at reality from a new angle, and coherently pursue the new point of view. This always provides new powerful insights.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Roger,

Thank you for your post. Your compliments and your feedback are very much appreciated. Here my answer, point by point.

1A. About holism, everybody including me will agrees that the whole is not necessarily the sum of the parts. What is not so obvious is that we can still think the whole as composed of parts when properties of the whole are incompatible with any property of each part! What then does it mean to be an object? Does the notion of object make sense without a consistent notion of property?

1B. Allow me to correct your "more fundamental state" into "more fundamental entity", and there are infinitely many entities having all properties still incompatible with some properties of the whole (holism), but that, at least in principle, we can observe locally thanks to local-discriminability of QT.

2. It seems to me that we are on a similar wavelength. I just want to emphasize that I'm using the world "state" the way we use in QT. The state is one (for the whole universe), the systems are many. The specific state is not controlled by the theory: the theory provides only its evolution.

3A. Objects are usually located in space. This doesn't mean that the space location define the object: it is a property of the object. Besides, a moving object is always the same object, it is not a different object at each different time. In this sense a teleported object is the same object moved to another place. The fact that matter is the same everywhere is the indistinguishability of identical particles in QFT.

3B. We agree here that space is made by "relations between things". For me such things are quantum systems, not objects.

Nice to talk with you, Roger

Thank you again

My best regards

Mauro

Dear George,

Thank you very much for the "master as a lector and writer".

I hope my students are not completely spoiled by me.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Torsen,

Thank you for your very kind appreciation.

Regarding my opinion about geometry, I strongly advise you to take a look of the new geometry coming out from the Geometric-group theory of Gromov. You would love it. Though, it may look as new-age music compared to the classical one of differential manifolds. There are still differential manifolds there. Look at the book of Misha Kapovich https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kapovich/EPR/kapovich_drutu.pdf

You would love it!

Dear Hoang,

Which was first: the egg or the chicken?

I will look at your essay

Best,

Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your very nice compliments.

I'm not in differential geometry, but I always wondered which are the connections with the quantum automaton, since here we have indeed a nontrivial manifold emerging at the Planck scale. And I always wondered about a simple starting connections with string-theory, there must be some. But I need a string-theorist for this, and one with an open mind. As regards the experimental data putting bounds on the Planck scale are far from being definitive, since, in my opinion, they are very theory-dependent. This is one of the topics that I'm mostly interested in.

Thank you for your interesting post.

My best regards

Mauro

Looks interesting.

I will take a look at it.

This thread is giving me quite an input. It will take time to digest them

I addition top answer posts, I still have to read other essays!

Thank you for your suggestions.

Dear Patrick

thank you for your wonderful compliments.

It seems that we are on the same wavelength.

I will definitely read your essay.

Best luck to you!

Mauro

Dear Wilhelmus,

thank you for your very nice compliment.

I will definitely read your essay, also to see the different way you use for the "deamterialisation" and Plato's cave!

Before starting reading other people essays, I need to finish answering to my thread.

Thank you very much again

And best luck to you!

Mauro