• [deleted]

  • Post #10

Manual,

The best I can think about it at the moment is the idea of is a piece of fabric made with an infinite number of infinitely long threads. An observer is asked to pull a piece of thread without breaking it and asked to read off the numbers. Before reading the thread the observer must assume that the section of the thread could have any set of numbers, after reading the numbers the observer has reduced the list of possibilities for the values of the thread for the section the pulled on. The log ratio of between what was known before vs after the observer read the numbers is the knowledge gained. However, what if a different observer pulled the same thread at the same location? Would the list of numbers be exactly the same? What about a third or the fourth? One would expect that if they are sufficient accurate, all observers will pull the thread in the same general location. However, their actual list of numbers will vary. When they compare their results they can all develop the same average, to within the same level of precision.

This process can be repeated indefinitely if one demands more and more precision. Quantum mechanics tells us there is a limit to our level of precision, which forces us to converge to some agreed upon average based on the shared knowledge of observers. However, there is a fundamental amount of information associated with uncertainty, where I am using the word information synonymously with uncertainty, it is this uncertainty that is preserved in the universe. However, since this is preserved, there is a limit to us from ever determining a "true value", we are only ever able to gain knowledge by comparing notes with other observers. This improves our level of precision about the world, but even with we polled all observers, we can only ever assume that our "truth" is approximate at best.

Will try to answer additional questions if you have any. Thanks again for reading my essay.

Apologies, I responded before logging in, the July 3 10:04 GMT post is mine.

Harlan

I am choosing to accept the definition of information in a general sense, which effectively associates information with uncertainty in the values in a sequence of variables. Quantum mechanics actually ensures there is always a level of uncertainty associated with any measurement. So the argument is that this fundamental uncertainty must be preserved in the universe. Although we can always consistently refine estimates to reach a very precise agreed on value, ultimately we are forced to accept a fundamental level of imprecision. This is sufficient for us to ultimately unravel the observations given enough time. So the essay actually embraces quantum mechanics in a very deep way.

Apologies, the July 2, 2013 @ 09:49 GMT is mine as well.

Harlan,

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 Harlan,

    Thanks for your detailed reply. Let me phrase things this way: there is a middle or average between 0 and 1 binary digits, i.e. different shades of grey between black and white. For a fundamental, non-composite IT, Can there be an average or middle between existence and non-existence states?

    You may have critical comments to share on my essay.

    Thanks,

    Akinbo

    Mr. Swyers,

    I found your essay very interesting to read. As a decrepit old realist, may I politely point out a possible flaw in your conclusions?

    I have mentioned in my essay BITTERS that each snowflake, each strand of DNA is unique. As one real Universe seems only to be occurring, once, everything in the Universe real or imagined must be unique, once. Each particle must be unique and each star must be unique. As they are both unique, they must always remain at a unique distance from every other particle and star that ever was, is, or will ever be in the future.

    Unique cannot be averaged. Unique, once is not comparative or relative or associative or accumulative. Abstract observers see perfect repetitive abstract scenes. Each real observer sees unique, once.

    Good luck in the contest.

    Joe

      Akinbo,

      I think there are subtleties in how you interpret your question. One way to think about your question is to think about a qubit. In the case of a qubit, in traditional interpretations of QM, prior to measurement, the state can be in a superposition of 1 and 0, in which case there is a probability amplitude associated with the qubit that might have a mode somewhere between 1 and 0. The other way to think of the problem is in terms of sampling of similar ensembles. In which case, the samplers will find a 1 or 0 as a conclusion of their individual sampling, but when the samples are statistically analyzed, the will find a distribution biased in favor of one or the other (or possible neither) state. Although I would not use the words excluded middle, if there is an excluded middle a frequentist would say that there is a true state of the system and we can assign a confidence interval to whether our result reflects the true state. A person think bayesian would not be able to say there is a true state, only that our best assessment is that it is more likely to be one state vs the other. However, if one assumes that there is a value that one approaches when one considers the results of all observers, then one can consider the confidence one has that the current answer is close to what the future answer would be when on polled all future results. However the excluded middle would prevent there from being any state other than one or zero.

      In any case, as soon as one considers answers statistically, there are shades to the answer, since one's own experience can always be completely different from what the statistical answer would suggest. This is akin to the ideas from the "Twilight Zone", where an observed experience deviates far from the norm.

      Shades of grey, or the absence of an excluded middle, arise when one considers a multivariable system. Each variable, when considered independently, may have a bias toward one or the other answer, however, it must be viewed in terms of statistics. In which case there are cases where observers have completely "grey" experiences that defy explanation. Most people would believe that such things can not exist, because statistically they are very unlikely, but that doesn't exclude them from occurring. So in a round about way, the answer would be yes, there are shades of grey, depending on how you want to define the system you are analyzing.

      Joe,

      Thanks for the interest in my essay. I would describe the situation a little differently. No one is saying that an observer is not having a unique experience. In fact, to some extent, classical statistics relies up unique experiences. However, it is a false position to think that an observer's independent experience dictates reality for all other observer's. One must consider that additional observers experiences must be included in our understanding of the universe. The classical reality must be based on the collective experience of all observers, and not based solely on the experience of one of the observers. The averaging creates a common basis for observers to relate to each other.

      Jim,

      I find myself in a similar predicament, and will attempt to read all 120 in the coming month. However, will probably read yours more immediately since you posted here when so many others have not.

      Respectfully Mr. Swyers,

      There is no such thing as "classical reality." Mindlessly accumulating and averaging common information about observations is futile. Reality is not an aggregate or a congregate. Reality is unique, once.

      Joe

      Joe,

      I agree with you that your reality is unique and it happens once. However, I disagree that your reality dictates the reality experienced by others.

      Respectfully Mr. Swyers,

      I never said that my reality dictates anything. Unique, once cannot dictate anything.

      Joe

      10 days later

      Great essay! Perhaps those who have rated low have not properly read it.

      I felt that your essay was very interesting, straightforward, well-organized, and well-written. In accordance, I have given you a very high rating.

      In general, I also agree with many (if not most) of your salient points. Further, your assessments (especially the first sections of your essay) seem firmly rooted in logic and I estimate such could be difficult to dispute in a general context.

      Though I have not checked everything here in detail, it seems initially proper. While I think your conclusions may need some refinement due to reasons of definition and more careful inspection, overall your treatment appears similar to my own.

      In my essay I opted for linguistic over symbolic logic on the basic premise (given the nature of the contest and the topic), but you've made an admirable attempt in identifying a formal argument which can help validate the premise; I think many components of your presentation here meld well with my own.

      Chris

        I think you have a sense of your hobby. I have, in many ways, the opposite of your views. In addition, your article is interesting for me, well reasoned, genuine. I believe that you are able to deepen the ideas presented in my work if you read them carefully.

        In accordance, I have given you a very high rating.

        Regards,

        Branko

          Thank you for reading, I appreciate the sincere comments, and certainly will continue to refine the arguments. One day at a time on this unfortunately. Thanks again!

          Dear Harlan,

          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

          Harlan

          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 each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

          Good luck and good cheers!

          Than Tin

          4 days later

          Dear Harlan,

          Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical ideas. "The trouble with physics" push ... You have a new idea. Excellent analytical essay with a very important conclusions:

          «It has been argued here it's the averages that determine perceived reality, the classical realm is an approximation, classical states are not stable, there is a limit to our knowledge of the past, and the cosmological constant is perfectly natural. The result is our perceived shared reality is merely the product of averaging over knowledge gained through observations. This means that the "bit" is an average bit, thereby denying it a definite existence. »

          I only have one question. Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics": «The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence. "

          http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

          In the Russian version of a short article: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.»

          Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

          I have made you a rating of "nine" and waiting for you on my forum.

          With best wishes and regards,

          Vladimir