The Common Mechanics of Quantum Computing and the I Ching by Thomas Howard Ray

Dear T H Ray,

Thanks for writing a highly interesting article and it takes its readers spell bound from the first line to the last one. You essay starts with the quotation, "Your task is not to foresee the future, but to enable it", seems to me to reflect what I have said in my essay on quantum physics; where I have said, reality is not discovered (as in the classical world) but it is rather 'invented' in the quantum world. In your essay, you have tried to describe the quantum world through the eyes of Quantum Computing and relating it, in a novel way, to the I Ching oracle. It is good to note that, 'discrete Bits come from a continuum of Its', there by claiming priority of It over Bit as in classical physics. But it appears curious to compare predictions of QM to I Ching oracle and thus indirectly saying that measurement results of QM spring from nowhere to correlate with the predicted ones. In order to overcome this unphysical attitude of QM in physics, you have tried to derive the whole of QM from the basics of classical physics (i.e. the continuity of space-time) there by uniting former with the latter and this automatically leads to the long sought theory of QG. Likewise, you have tried to merge fermion statistics with the boson statistics and there by showing that' the entire universe is not other than locally real'. But, in the end there is no such theory of QG and there is again the 'uncertainty' of the quantum world prevailing not only in QM but also in classical arithmetic as it is having a 'degree of built in computational uncertainty'. So this uncertainty is there even in the classical world as it is based on the continuity of numbers and even quantum computing does not reach that level and a rational research program is at loggerheads.

I hope, you try to fix this unsolved problem in the future and become guiding light to all those who seek an answer to this perplexing problem of QG.

I wish you all the best in the essay contest and urge you go through my essay and post your invaluable comments on it in my thread.

Sincerely,

Sreenath

Tom,

I believe that the wave amplitude, Psi, this thing that interferes with other wave-functions, is the SUBSTRATE of REALITY. The wave amplitude is what has the physics constant c attached to it.

The probability of (psi*)(psi) is what we measure as probabilities.

All this Hilbert space mathematics is just overhead above and beyond what nature is really doing. Physicists have to use mathematics to solve QM problems. Nature doesn't have to solve problems. It just acts the way it would naturally act.

In my view, this wave amplitude phenomena, the substrate of reality, permeates all things, and is indistinguishable from what some people call spirit. If there was such a thing as a soul or a consciousness that survived the death of the physical body, it would have something to do with this inter-penetrating substrate of reality that, at the quantum level, interferes like water waves.

Dear T H Ray,

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and I am too going to rate your entertaining essay with maximum score.

All the best,

Sreenath

Dear T H Ray,

I have rated your essay with maximum score.

best,

Sreenath

From phlogiston to gravitons, which were never found, to Higg's particles, which are not compatible with big bang/inflation theory. Plug in a wrong answer, grind through the calculations, and discover that things don't fit. It's the scientific method.

You know what's funny? I didn't even know there was anything wrong with Higgs inflation, until I wondered when Higgs particles were created during the big bang/inflation period. It's that interpenetrating aether that flows through everything that alerted me to the problem, like a sixth sense.

http://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804

Thanks Thomas -

"Maybe if we all got together and compared our simple sets we might conclude that they are identical" That is very probable - one of my main gripes in physics is that mathematics and theorizing allows us to make very different theories about the same phenomena (Schrodinger wave & Heisenberg matrices for example) - but one is always 'closer to nature' and can lead to new developments.

Thanks

Vladimir

Dear Thomas. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Oh and here is the Itsy Bitsy song enjoy the silly nostalgia.

Vladimir

Tom,

Some of my comment were only metaphoric.

Jim

Dear Tom,

You brought a good quote that cause researchers to "dig" to the most remote meaning of being: " All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses" and " Whatever is born or done in a moment of time has the properties of this moment in time".

And again, you are putting a great question: «Is information identical to time?». In conclusion, the idea of the ancient " As above, so below". Your conclusions all the more convinced of the rightness of David Gross of the "common framework structure" of physics. I think not only of physics.

http://expert.ru/expert/2013/06/iz-chego-sostoit-prostranstvo-vremya/

I wish you every success and respect,

Vladimir

Dear Tom,

Great essay and very, very readable. I love the roulette explanation at the start. Very good way to teach the concepts involved. I'm also relieved to hear that the dead cat can be resurrected - even if it takes an infinite amount of time ;)

The positron, electron diagrams worked well too. Well done, I rate it highly - very interesting.

If you find the time, please take a look at my essay. Different approach to yours, but hopefully of some interest.

Best wishes,

Antony

Hi Tom,

As promised in my Essay page, I have read your particular Essay.

I find it intriguing for various reasons.

I like the simile between quantum physics and divination system of I Ching.

I think that your sentence "Gravity does not fit into quantum mechanics because one cannot derive a continuum of information from a bit of information, in any non-arbitrary way." is also the core of the black hole information loss paradox that I discussed in my Essay.

Do you think that your suggestion that "the ordered continuum is "It" and that partially ordered measures of information events (the "books" we create from the symbols) are the "bits"" is compatible with my statement "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?

In any case, your Essay is pretty and I strongly appreciated it. Therefore, I will give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Christian,

I sure do agree that your statement ("Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow") is compatible with the flow of partially ordered information over a continuous manifold of totally ordered information. I think it's even stronger than that -- it consummates Wheeler's simple explanation of general relativity ("Matter tells space how to curve; space tells matter how to move") by replacing the assumption of matter with the assumption of information, implying what we've long hoped for in a unified theory of physics, that space and time alone explain the origin and behavior of matter.

Personally, I long doubted that Hawking's remarkable work in black hole thermodynamics could bridge that gap -- because of Hawking's insistence on information loss. This conclusion sabotaged hope that general relativity and quantum mechanics can be smoothly united -- because it implies that there is no time continuum: information loss is equivalent to quantum entanglement and wavefunction collapse, so there's no profit in pursuing the relativity connection further.

When Hawking reversed his opinion (2001, I think, though I wasn't aware of it until a couple of years later) my enthusiasm for unification via a field theory was reignited -- coincident with some intense study of Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture. It wasn't the proof so much that impressed me (hardly anyone thought the conjecture was false); it was the strategy (Thurston's geometrization conjecture). If the manifold of a 3-sphere (an event horizon in physical terms) can be continuously deformed and reformed, this differs from black hole thermodynamics -- how? If there is no singularity that cannot be extinguished in finite time, there is no naked singularity that is physical, and self organized fields account for all the physical effects we ascribe to matter. Furthermore, time symmetry is restored and black hole radiation (Hawking radiation) is a natural physical consequence of the geometry.

With your (Corda's) information-preserving construction at the black hole event horizon, we can now speak of a time-conserving information flow, that smoothly corresponds to the geometric flow central to Perelman's proof. Thus, the evolution from pure state to pure state at the event horizon preserves the symmetry of general relativity, without the assumption of an asymmetric field that led Einstein astray for many years. In my own conception, general relativity's model of a "finite and unbounded" universe -- conventionally considered as finite in time, i.e., bounded at the singularity of creation, and unbounded in space -- remains unchanged when transposed to a model finite in space and unbounded in time.

In the future I expect we will replace black hole thermodynamics with black hole informatics. I predict we will find that the self-similarity of information exchange at *any* event horizon from quantum to classical scales produces a continuous field of interacting waves to which particles owe their existence. Hey -- maybe it really is turtles all the way down. :-)

All best,

Tom

Tom,

Catching up with rating and just found you in uncharted territory. Hope this helps. Also hope you've done mine (or better still haven't and it's high!) I think we should organise audio essays in future. My eyes are aching!

It's been a great contest for me as I've found much resonance and some great support and new links to similar work and consistent theory. But how can we ever update ('change') established doctrine?

Very best of luck in the run in.

Peter