Giacomo,

John Bell's use of the term 'super-determinism' is another way of saying that determinism is predetermined. The findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded has provided empirical evidence to substantiate that nature is absolutely deterministic in that its construct is predetermined.

The evidence infers that no experiment can be conducted without a selection first being made. I find that physics focus on observed or measure effects and not its true cause. This tiny detail is what has prevented us from understanding reality. I hope you find time to review my findings:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Akinibo,

the quantum pixels are quantum systems, such as qubits, without space-extensions, nor space-dimension, nor filling space in between. Space must emerge, not pre-exist. I really don't care much of introducing fancy names for impressing the audience. Quantum systems are quantum systems, that's it.

Thank you also for the reference of Wheeler, I think I don't have it.

My best regards

Mauro

ciao Mauro

I wondered in the essay pages and I noticed that your essay was generating much discussion.

After now looking at the essay I can see why: a particularly thought-provoking essay!!

Unfortunately on this occasion I literally could not find time to produce an essay to contribute to the debate, but even from the essay I produced for the previous competition you can imagine that I am in resonance with the assertion

that the notion of "physical object" is no longer logically tenable.

I would perhaps slightly rephrase. The luxury of relying on a naive axiomatic notion of "physical object" is no longer affordable on the current frontiers of fundamental physics. At the very least it needs a proper scientific definition. I am happy to keep, at least as long as we are on the current frontier, an axiomatic notion of "detector" (or perhaps "detection"), but all other luxuries,

first of all the spacetime-abstraction luxury but also the physical-object luxury, must be abandoned.

Congratulations on this excellent essay!

The debate might further heat up when/if Olaf Dreyer's essay will be posted: he told me he was thinking of possibly contributing an essay and from Olaf's description I would say it could be stimulatingly complementary to yours.

Giovanni

Dear Giovanni

it is great to hear from you!

Yes! it seems that the idea of the physical-object-as-logically-untenable is gathering consensus. It seems that I succeeded in convincing many people at least to have a try of our different view of the world. The "It from Bit" is now much more than just an ideology. It is a fact! With Paolo Perinotti we succeeded in deriving the Dirac equation as emergent from just quantum systems in interaction, with the only obvious requirements of homogeneity, isotropy, locality, and unitariety. And, at the same time, we hit two pigeons with one stone, getting a unified theory including also the super-relativistic regime and the Planck scale, a theory that embodies in a single unified framework your Doubly Special Relativity with an additional invariant energy, and yours and Smolin's relative locality. With Bibeau, Bisio, Perinotti and Tosini we are now writing a paper only on these topics. It is really very exciting to see how much new physics and phenomenology can emerge from just a bunch very general of principles.

I'm sure also Olaf will like this a lot.

My best regards

Mauro

Mauro,

Thank you for your curiosity and for having an open mind. I found John Bell's 'super-determinism' description well worth exploring. The findings show that the 'metaphysical' reference you mention is derived from our 'interpretation' of reality which turns out to be culprit preventing us from obtaining the Theory of Everything as presented in my essay. I trust you may want to review the initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment as presented at the April, 2011, APS convention which served as the basis of my essay: PHYSICS OF PREDETERMINED EVENTS Complementarity States of Choice-Chance Mechanics

I look forward to your review.

Regards,

Manuel

Mauro,

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 Giacomo,

    I agree with you, very interesting. I knew it partly because of my interest for hyerbolic geometry.

    Thanks

    Torsten

    Dear Mauro,

    With respect, but with Bell's theorem refuted, you need to examine the history of how it came to be called "a theorem." That was not Bell's fault.

    And, without deeper analysis of Bell's "theorem," I suggest that any "interpretation" by you and your team is likely to be ill-founded and just another addition to a growing list of such. For we must always recall that all Bell inequalities are refuted by experiments.

    In that my theory is wholly local and realistic AND non-contextual, you can see that it is a challenge to many interpretations, not just yours.

    About this from you,"let's judge people from outside." I would prefer to avoid a popularity contest and have you and your team address the high-school maths and logic on which my theory is based. Given that my results are fully supported experimentally, such action would of course challenge your opinion "that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little."

    But it is from such challenges that science progresses -- and the change that I make to Quantum Theory is very small indeed.

    Yet it is enough to eliminate the postulate that you suggest distinguishes the Quantum from the Classical; for that change relates to entanglement (after Schroedinger) and the measurement process (after von Neumann).

    PS: Whilst I much prefer open discussions, I am happy to continue this discussion privately if you or any member of your team so wishes.

    With best regards, and looking forward to your reply; Gordon Watson.

    Dear D'Ariano,

    One problem I have with the idea of "It" emerging from "Qubit" is that it presents a Zeno scenario, putting us in pain of infinite regress.

    How can you perform observation on THE PARTS of a holism for then it yet has parts:"local discriminability". For me you either arrive at "locality" (the parts) via non-locality (the whole) or vice versa.

    I assert that you cannot actually have the notion of a field without having the notion of an object for the field is only LESS OBJECT than some reference object.And vice versa.

    It does not seem to me that we can get anywhere without actually defining the wave function (for it is that blur between the it and the bit). Hard problem, but it IS the problem. Check me out on this if you can at: "What a Wavefunction is"What a Wavefunction is.

    Do your best to prove me wrong on this. It helps everyone think clearer.

    Chidi Idika

      Dear Giacomo and Matt,

      Very interesting discussion! I'm sorry to butt in, but I've been trying to have some discussion about the relativity of simultaneity, preferred frames, absolute time, etc., through the last couple of contests, so I was hoping you'd let me join you here.

      As one raised on cosmology, I have to give my support to Giacomo's comment that "As most cosmologist admit, we have a preferred frame: the background radiation." Cosmic time is one of the basic assumptions of modern cosmology, although it's not commonly spoken of as being opposed to the spirit of relativity (which it obviously is). Actually, my previous essay argued that standard cosmology goes a step too far by remaining true to the Einsteinian definition of simultaneity as synonymous with synchronicity, albeit only in the cosmic frame.

      I tried to discuss the distinction between simultaneity and synchronicity that needs to be made in a realistic version of relativity on Ken Wharton's page, because of a funny inconsistency I see in his essay. He based his essay on the implication from the relativity of simultaneity, that we live in a block universe where all of space-time is real at once. But his analysis makes use of what he calls the Independence Fallacy, which, if you agree with it, provides a very strong argument *against* the relativity of simultaneity (actually, it goes roughly as Giacomo has stated it above). Since the issue has come up here as one that interests you, I'd be interested in any response you might have to my posts there.

      Thanks, Daryl

      Dear Dr.Giacomo D'Ariano,

      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

      The egg was long before the chicken:

      the chicken is a bird and birds evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

      While eggs were laid by reptiles long before this era.

      (If instead the question regards "eggs laid by a chicken", then clearly chickens come first.

      If instead the question regards "eggs from which a chicken is born", then clearly eggs come first.)

      In all cases, the question has simple and unproblematic solution. I never understood what is the issue about eggs and chickens.

      Mauro, I find your criticism of the notion of object fully convincing.

      Just a point for reflection: if you consider that at some level quantum gravity is relevant, you cannot even rely on a three (or four)-dimensional background over which you qbits can live.

      Carlo

        Dear Mauro

        This is an interesting essay, and I continue to be surprised (as you have been) about how similar, and yet different, our lines of thinking have been.

        Your demolition of object is interesting. However, rather than allowing us to talk about existence of an object, an operationalist viewpoint only allows us to define an entity, such as an electron, in terms of what it does to our measurement apparatus. I do not know, nor can I know, what an electron is. I can only discern a pattern of influences that I can choose to call an electron.

        I am confused by your statement . I am not sure what "pure information" is, nor am I sure how to distinguish "kinds" of information. In my way of thinking, information is something that constrains one's beliefs. In this sense, I am not sure how "quantum information" is different than "classical information". Indeed in the paper that Philip Goyal and I wrote, (http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/3/2/171 ), we rely on regular old probability theory to derive the Feynman path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. The difference that QM plays is that one uses amplitudes to assign priors.

        It also seems that your quantum elements need to sit in some kind of array or lattice. How does this lattice come about? Can there be dislocations? Or is it perfect? If so, why? In my approach there is no such lattice. In the case where one imagines a special situation where two observer chains may agree on the lengths of each others' intervals one gets a Minkowski metric and so on (as discussed in my essay).

        Now I do like the fact that you come up with a BCC lattice as being important. You may be interested in a paper by Bialnycki-Birula which did not appear in your references (PRD 49(12), 1994, pp 6920-6927). He *reverse engineers* a complex-valued cellular automaton that reproduces the Weyl and Dirac equations. I'd be interested in learning more about your approach to see how similar or different your findings are to his.

        I myself have found BCC lattices to arise naturally when I rely on three pairs of observers. I have not put this in any of my papers yet, but this was presented in my slides from my 2012 APS talk (http://huginn.com/talks/knuth-aps12-final.pdf).

        Another difference here is that your approach relies on a concept of energy and mass (as coupling). In my essay I try to get an understanding of what these quantities represent in terms of what electrons do.

        I continue to be surprised at how our parallel our paths are given that our foundational ideas are so different. Perhaps we are both at a point where we realize that the object we are exploring is a mammal belonging to the genus Proboscidea.

          Dear Professor Giacomo

          So far I have read two very interesting essays from the Italian contingent, yourself and from Carlo. Before all is over, I hope to find more. Good luck to all!

          In my essay "Analogical Engine", I have said somewhat grandly that: (1) "Quantum mechanics is analogical" and (2) "The Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities and a necessary condition for existence of all thoughts and things", based on the premise "What quantum is to classical" is similar to "What analogy is to rationality." Cognitively, I have back it up with a thought-experiment, while "deriving" a simulacrum of the Planck constant, giving a vivid and metaphorical meaning to what we are discussing here: "It from Bit", or in my book: "The classical from the quantum", which in the framework of my essay is about "The rational from the analogy."

          I am not a physicist and my maths are not to snuff, but I hear resonances (a phrase borrowed from Manuel) in your essay. Can you say the same if you have time to read my essay?

          Than Tin

            Dear Dr. Giacomo D'Ariano,

            I read your, deeply but clearly thought out well written, essay with ease and enthusiasm. In which you have argued why Bit is more important for' us' than It, i.e., out of 'It from Bit or 'Bit from It', you have chosen the former alternative and for which you have given substantial back ground material as to why we have to side with you. In the same essay contest prof. Tejinder Singh and co. also have written an equally absorbing article, in which they have argued why It is more important than Bit with equal clarity and enough substantial back ground material as to why we have to side with them and they have opted for the alternative 'Bit from It'. Both these two articles are equally convincing and after comparing them with my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) I have come to the conclusion that both views conform to a more basic view, in the following way.

            It is the 'observation' and the 'knowledge' acquired due to observation by 'mind', are two things more basic than It and Bit. With respect to observation and knowledge, the priority between It and Bit wouldn't make much difference as mind tries to contact the external world (It) through Bit and hence Bit 'supplies' us the knowledge of It to the mind and there by claims priority, but it is It which is supplying mind Bit at the same time and therefore claims priority over Bit. Now we can understand why both It and Bit are equally important and the question of priority is just the way we look at them. That is why I have concluded in my essay, 'although information & reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind; Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit; thus the relationship between them is triangular and so all three are equally essential for knowledge to coexist'.

            So, I have argued in prof. Tejinder Singh's thread that both views are 'diametrically opposite'. In prof. Tejinder Singh's article, he moves from past to future as in classical physics and hence give priority to It in QM; where as in your article, you move from future to past and give priority to Bit although both describe the same reality (observation) from opposite ends/ directions.

            Thanking you and best of luck.

            Sreenath

            Mauro,

            I have been reading your essay but found your reply here especially interesting, as my essay also demonstrates that differential topology does not incorporate volume. My view is that if a metric theory can also have quantized volume (using Gunnar Nordstroem's theory) then this could be used as a link between GR and QFT. I will have to re-read your essay a few times but look forward to giving it a high rating.

            Kind Regards,

            JP Baugher

            Dear Carlo

            indeed, I don't rely on any background. The starting point is only relational, and that's where the finitely presented infinite group comes from. The quasi-isometric embedding in R^d is a temporary restriction in seeking all possible automata. On the other hand, I conjecture that there will be no automaton e.g. in hyperbolic spaces. In any case, the relations come first, and the embedding is a property of the group, and space and SR emergence come later.

            The way I expect to get gravity is through a holographic principle from the automaton in an Euclidean space, a la Jacobson-Verlinde, and in such way curved space will be emergent, as a way to describe gravity phenomenologically, as Einstein did.