Dear Ralph

thank you very much for your marvelous compliments. I really appreciate them. I'm happy that you share my point of view so closely. I read your essay, which is full of enthusiasm and positive thinking, which explains your success, especially with with the Public.

I'm pursuing the information paradigm, because I am convinced (and have already proved it in some relevant situation, as for the Dirac equation) that is going to reveal us great new physics.

With my best regards

and thank you again for your sincere compliments

Mauro

Dear Jayakar,

the fact that information has an intrinsic probabilistic nature, has nothing to do with the countable nature of the (q)bits. We want to see now what this new paradigm can tell us more than what continuous field theory (including string theory) has already said. It is very promising: let's it have a try.

My best regards

Mauro

Patrick,

thank you very much for your compliments and your rating. I read your idea in your essay about the state of non-existence, but it cannot work. The system supporting the state must logically exists, and has different states, say two of them for the classical bit. Somebody in the past also considered the case of a system that can or cannot exist, but this needs an additional state, i.e. the bit becomes a kind of a "trit".

Thank you again,

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Gordon,

sorry, but our points of view are clearly in contraposition. Apart from this, you will understand that we are not here for refereeing papers. I strongly suggest you to consider a peer reviewed journal for this.

My best regards

Mauro

Mauro,

I would like to hear your critical views of my essay, "It Great to be the King." It argues against the "Anthropic Principle" at a very basic level, with little mathematical anchoring.

Jim

Dear Giacomo,

On june 27 I wrote a short post on your excellent submission.

Forgive for being cheeky, I understand that you have lots of things to do, but I am really curious about your perception of the parallels in our thinking, of course there are differences but I think we both try to come to a new perception of reality.

here is the link to my essay

(The Quest for the Primal Sequence)

respectfully

Wilhelmus

    Hi D'Ariano,

    When observation is stressed as the starting point for theory building, is there prediction power in a resulting theory for phenomenon not yet observed? On would think that a theory matching the facts with extreme and fantastic precision might miss some underlying factor and come into conflict when new observations are mad that the theory was not based on. so Is it validated only by fitting observational data?

    Also, do you have a short hand mathematical example of the statement "it anticipates a bound "for the rest-mass for the Dirac particle?"

    have the best,

    Amos.

      Dear Professor Giacomo

      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.

      Best regards

      Than Tin

        Dear Giacomo,

        We corresponded before and I appreciate your frankness and your difficult to shake relational views of space. As I am not a professional physicist and just to be clear and learn from professionals: Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

        You can reply me here or on my blogmy blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

        Accept my best regards,

        Akinbo

          Dear Professor D'Ariano,

          I am happy that so excellent essay as yours is top rated among some others that are also close to my ideas. I dare to express your "It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of pure information" in a paraphrase: It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of a pure (conformally flat, isotropic, elastic, homeomorphic and self-organized) spacetime.

          I would like to fill your beautiful ontology with details that are able to reconcile, in a sense, Einstein with Bell. The details are powerful because they generate clear predictions. I will also add a real experiment to get ability to falsify that details.

          "failures in explaining relevant phenomena-e.g. gravity or dark matter and other astrophysical observations-phenomena that even a reasonable revision of the particle notion seems unable to explain. An ontology that works perfectly well in accounting for a large class of phenomena may later prove having not the same power in explaining other phenomena, e.g. those occurring at scales that are much larger or much smaller than those where the ontology is successful"

          That revision of the particle notion is a kind of geometrization of matter. I have tried to apply the geometrization concept not only to the "matter" but also to all "force fields" i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear. The gravity would then be emergent as a superposition. The job is not easy so I have proposed an experiment to be sure this is not a huge waste of time. As you know Einstein GR failed outside the Solar System distance scale ( so some physicists try to save GR by means of dark things) and Wheeler-deWitt geometrodynamics has the well-known flaws: the problem of time, the problem of Hilbert space and others. QM's Standard Model in turn does not offer any metric. The other theories using canonical approaches (connection dynamics, loop dynamics etc.) or covariant approaches (perturbation theory, path integrals etc.) and string theories also have not acceptable flaws or generate no predictions.

          I also do not use any lattice as it seems to be too limiting. Instead I use deformations of spacetime (wavepackets). Any spacetime deformation is unlimited (to some extent, it deforms the entire spacetime in Gaussian distribution mode, due to its elastic and homeomorphism properties). Than Quantum nonlocality becomes GR type locality by the emergence out of Gaussian distribution.

          I am looking for that one, universal, distance scale invariant metric (eventually reducing to Einstein GR metric within Solar System distance scale) and having ability to generate predictions. The first prediction of that geometrization concept is the spin experiment outcome. Depending on the outcome we shall look for a proper metric or give up.

          ===========

          "we should trust observations, even against our intuition, and ground our knowledge on the logic of the experiment, focusing theoretical predictions on what we actually observe."

          Einstein has asked: could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? Paraphrasing him let us assume that what impresses our senses as matter is really a strong deformation of spacetime.

          Let us start out with our simple thought experiment: we emit a wave to observe that small region in spacetime (the size of an elementary particle radius). That region is deformed to the grade that the wave actually detected (observed) comes back to us along a geodesic ("straight line" in differential geometry). In fact we observe only a strongly deformed spacetime region and redirecting our wave but apparently... we perceive a particle. "We perceive" means that our measuring instruments and our language out of the force of habit say so. The fact that deformation of spacetime exist is generally recognized as a part of general relativity theory (e.g. gravitational lensing). In contrast to GR's distance scale the metric under consideration refers to the quantum scale [3].

          Before we proceed (in future, depending on the outcome of our real experiment) to calculate the proper scale invariant metric we need to take some assumptions regarding the spacetime properties to decide what could possibly emerge out of our reasoning:

          a) the spacetime is continuous, i.e. not perforated, not torn and has a homeomorphism property

          b) the spacetime has elastic properties (possible to calculate)

          c) the elastic properties of spacetime are isotropic

          d) any spacetime deformation is unlimited (to some extent, it deforms the entire spacetime in Gaussian distribution mode, due to its elastic and homeomorphism properties). Quantum nonlocality becomes GR type locality by the emergence out of Gaussian distribution

          e) the spacetime is a dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality. That assumption is necessary to use the general law of survival of the stable for the evolution of spacetime deformations)[3]

          The spacetime here is not the infamous ether which was rightly rejected because it was to be a frame of reference and a background for all events. The spacetime is not the background, but the material (fabric) of matter and energy itself and then it is quite natural that energy and matter can be transmitted as waves/wavepackets.

          The real experiment

          A source emits a right-handed photon, the photon impinges almost perpendicularly a mirror being reflected to a detector set up to measure the spin of particle. The photon shall be a low-energy photon to avoid a photoelectric effect, Compton scattering or pair production.

          According to Standard Model of QM the reflected photon's spin is the opposite to that of the photon emitted at the source.

          According to our thought experiment carried out above the "reflected" photon's spin is the same as that of the photon emitted.

          According to Standard Model the photon does not go "around" along a geodesic but it is simply reflected and as a cause of that reflection the spin is changed.

          We try to prove that the photon is not a point particle (like in Standard Model) that is reflected from another point particle (one of the many creating our mirror) but instead it travels around a "particle" being a part of the mirror and comes back along a geodesic. The way it goes is a geodesic because the mirror's "particle" is the spacetime deformation only. If our photon goes along the geodesic (straight line) it does not change its spin.

          So it is a realization of the thought experiment.

          =========

          My next proposal is to exchange the emergence of spacetime from Qubits into the emergence of Qubits from the conformally flat, isotropic, homeomorphic, self-organized and elastic spacetime.

          My answer to "What is then the teleported human?": He/she is a wavepacket.

          My proposal for your holism is to narrow it down to emergentism that is the direct consequence of any evolutionary approach.

          Finally my comment for the Quantum Cellular Automata issue. To me the universe is a dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality. The structured criticality is a property of complex systems where small events may trigger larger events. This is a kind of chaos where the general behavior of the system can be modeled on one scale while smaller- and larger-scale behaviors remain unpredictable. The simple example of that phenomenon is a pile of sand. When QM and GR are computable and deterministic, the universe evolution (naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic.

          I am sorry for that long comment.

          Anyway your essay deserves the highest rating.

          I do believe you will win the contest!

          Dear Jacek,

          your post is much longer than your essay!

          If I understand your point of view, in synthesis the similarity with mine relies in the notion of physical "object" as emergent. However, in your case the underlying software is a (conformally flat, isotropic, elastic, homeomorphic and self-organized) space-time. In my case is a countable set of quantum systems in relational unitary interactions. The quantum superposition then plays the major role in the emergence.

          On the contrary, if I understand well, the main departure from our points of view is that in my case the universe is evolving unitarily, though dissipation can emerge (in a different sense from the previous case), and then can exhibit self-organized criticality. For me everything is (must be) computable.

          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, and derive all the physics that follows from them, as a theorem. In my case the principles are locality, homogeneity, isotropy, unitariety. At least from my work with Paolo Perinotti we have seen that from these principles we also get SR as an approximated covariance. So, we can conclude that there is something more fundamental than SR, and SR is just approximate. Whether the physical world is made like that-namely it is really discrete and relies on these fundamental principles-will then be subjected to experiments.

          But my general message is: don't be afraid of discreteness. It works absolutely well, without the hurdles of the continuum, and with all the aids of the continuum in the relativistic regime!

          You will see the full power of the automaton at work for QED, when it will authomatically sum-up all Feynman diagrams.

          Thank you very much for your wonderful compliments and your:

          "I do believe you will win the contest! "!

          As you can imagine, I really hope so! It would be unique opportunity of diffusing these ideas to the public, and allow this new theoretical approach to have a try.

          My best regards, and thank you again

          Mauro

            Dear Akinibo

            you are touching the apocryphal principle of Mach, which Einstein was so fond of, but, unfortunately he couldn't achieve in his GR. Its space-time metric played the role of a kind of ether. In his Lecture in Leiden he said that he believed that the rotating Newton bucket would have the water pushing up the bucket walls, even in an empty universe (see the masterpiece Einstein's biography of Walter Isaacson). Do we have the absolute inertial frame, or even the rest frame, as an ether? In practice we have an ether: it is the background radiation. It is a frame with respect to which we can check that we are moving. And, in practice, we define the inertial frame only relying on fixed stars. In an emergent space-time from an automaton Lorenz covariance is distorted, meaning that the principle of relativity does not hold in a ultra-relativistic regime.

            I will post this also on your blog, as you asked me.

            Thank you for raising the issue.

            My best regards

            Mauro

            Dear Than

            I'm happy that we both think, as Richard Feynman did, that "simplicity" is the key of theoretical research.

            As a matter of fact, my general principle at the basis of the quantum automaton is the minimization of its quantum algorithmic complexity. Locality, homogeneity, and isotropy reduce enormously the algorithmic complexity of the physical law represented by the automaton.

            My best regards

            Mauro

            Dear William

            thank you for raising these issues. Indeed, in my framework "observation" is stressed only in the sense that I want to make clear the difference between theoretical notions and observed events. Usually we confuse the two. For example, we take the notion of particle as a concrete object, whereas it is just a theoretical one.

            Regarding the bound for the mass, this is something that I discovered more than three years ago on the d=1 Dirac automaton (see arXiv), and can be found in some proceedings and published recently in PLA A 376 697 (2012). It is now confirmed with the automaton in 3d. It is just a consequence of unitariety. In the row (or column) of the unitary matrix there is a term that plays the role of the inertial mass in the relativistic limit of small wave vectors, and, due to normalization of the row, must be bounded by 1. In the digital-analog conversion one has this bound corresponding to the Planck mass. See also my 2011 and 2012 FQXi essays. A consequence of unitariety is also the fact that one has a "refraction index for vacuum" depending on the inertial mass, and the speed goes to zero at the Planck mass. Very like the mini-black-hole, but without using GR!

            My best regards

            Mauro

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            philosophically there maybe some parallels between your an my essays, though I don't like the"participatory" universe of Wheeler so much. However, the main departure point is a matter of philosophy of science. For me what really matters is the straightforward connection between a set of (precisely stated and almost unavoidable) principles and the physics that originates from them. As in the dream of the sixth problem of Hilbert, I try to axiomatize physics, and my axioms are of informational nature. This is the case of the Pavia axiomatization of Quantum Theory [Phys. Rev A 84 012311 (2011)], and now I add locality, homogeneity, isotropy, namely minimal algorithmic complexity. It is astonishing of how much physics you can derive from them (you have not seen the end yet!) Also my "vaporization of the object" follows a logical path of this kind. And, the local-discriminability axiom of Quantum Theory in the Pavia axiomatization is definitely an axiom that Hilbert would have loved.

            My best regards

            Mauro

            Giacomo

            "Real object" is tautology.

            "Ideal object" is contradiction.

            As Ludvig Wittgestein told

            "Tautoloy and contradiction havn't sense"

            Are you agree?

            Yuri

              Caro professore D'Ariano,

              mille grazie per aver condiviso la sua bella mente con noi. (I'm afraid my written Italian stops here -- but I can talk :)

              I would like to bring your attention to the beautiful and short, almost like a theorem, essay by Maria Carrillo-Ruiz, who also shows how cellular automata can be linked to the concept of emergence. In the context of ontological monism she says, "Reality is ultimately composed of one basic stuff. Yet the concepts of physics are not sufficient to explain all the forms that this stuff takes and all the ways it comes to be structured, individuated, and causally efficacious." I thought you may like to read it and please share with us your impressions.

              The other essay to which I wanted to bring your attention is by Dr. Carolyn Devereux, who, also in the context of ontological monism, introduces a novel idea of how 'matter' may emerge from harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate, thus offering an alternative to CA mechanism of emergence. I am especially partial to this view, because it resonates with my vision of how the universe emerged (which I tried to convey, within my layman limitations, in the last year contest).

              The central idea of both essays fits very well with my understanding, that, in layman terms, everything in the universe, including space itself, is made of the same 'space stuff'. Or, alternatively, that reality emerges in the dynamic structure of space. In this view, energy = dynamics and information = structure or organization that emerges out of primitive processes governed by just a few simple principles. Thus, in my understanding, if ToE is ever to be found, such a theory would naturally have to be not only background independent but the organization of what we define as background would emerge from it -- and everything else would emerge from this background. Or, in layman terms again, every 'thing', including space-time itself, is ultimately 'made of' the underlying quantum processes. I hope that this also in line with your view --at least this is how I understand it-- please correct me if I'm wrong.

              Please read these two essays and tell us what you think :)

              Maria Carrillo-Ruiz & Dr Carolyn Devereux

              Mille grazie:)

              -Marina

                Professor Mauro,

                Is that comment an admission that you can only change the imaginary minds of suspected realists? If Wheeler had only asked:

                Is the Universe real? Yes

                Is information real? No

                Is the real Universe simple? Yes

                Is the abstract universe simple? no

                Is unique, once simple? yes.

                Is quantum theory simple? No.

                Joe

                Joe,

                Sorry for my misunderstanding. I didn't realize that you were serious in your previous post.

                My regards

                Mauro

                Yury,

                I do not agree with your first assertion, if you do not take it as a definition of realism,

                To me both are nonsense, because the notion of physical object is so, independently on the attached adjective.

                The first sentence of the Wittgenstein tractatus is the one that represents my thinking:

                " The world is the totality of facts, not of things."

                Mauro