Contextuality: Wheeler’s universal regulating principle by Ian Durham

Dear Ian,

I wish I'd reached your essay earlier. It's very relevant to mine, which is more ambitious (possibly overly).

I like and agree with your explanations and propositions and think 'matter-energy' is a fair descriptor if it. Of course it may also be a fair descriptor of Bit, but importantly you point out;

"the result of a quantum measurement will always produce a result that lies in the domain of classical quantity-value objects".

So we assume 0 and 1 are JUST 0 and 1, which as von Neumann pointed out is inconsistent with QM. What if it were more? What if it had 'fractal' domains with a complete Bayesian/Godel distribution in each. So if we knew a different way to ask, we could ask not just; "up or down?", but exactly "How High?" or Low in each case.

You hint at this then fall short, but do get closer than anybody. I hope you'll read mine as I construct that ontological road to the end, and find it appears that; "perhaps the key to understanding the universe IS lying right under our very noses".!

If Honus's card tells us 1, there are infinitely higher orders where all the traits of Honus himself exists. Your essay has helped me rationalise this better but I hope you'll also try to falsify my apparently quite radical but realist finding.

Well done for your own which should be much higher so hold tight for just a moment while I send a signal to cause a trigger to impart some significant motion. It's quite fun. I hope you'll try it too!

Best wishes

Peter

Obviously; Peter enjoys playing the role of propagator.

I'll return here soon, after reading for detail, and will likely wish to impart a bit of motion as well. Some keen insights Ian! I hope more people get around to reading this one, now that they have extended the deadline.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Dear Ian,

I will appreciate a look-in on my amateur essay. I doubt you will enjoy it because not so technical with terms like entanglement, contextuality, etc. But purpose of this current post is to learn something from you...

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

I enjoyed your essay greatly Ian..

It was interesting, informative, and educational. You do an excellent job of explaining some highly technical subject matter in a way that is lucid for those not familiar with the concepts of topos or category theory. I really like the discussion about the meaning of orthogonality. But I am not certain about your final conclusion that there is an unending increase of information because of contextuality.

That would depend on a rich environment of objects and spaces that permit interaction and provide new context. The cold dark end predicted in some cosmological models fairly mainstream, would rob isolated sub-atomic particles of any context after a while. The sheer distance would assure the possibility of interaction eventually becomes almost nil. Once all defining contextual information is stripped away; what then?

I'll be reading this essay again, because I'll learn something. And again; your clarity of exposition makes some otherwise challenging material easy to understand. Good luck in the contest.

Regards,

Jonathan

Hello Ian

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

I wanted to comment briefly..

The cornerstone of my essay is ultimately contextuality, in the broader or general sense. As you point out, context defines the arena in which events and measurements take place, and the range in which the important variables may be found. I especially like the observation that we can't know for sure if a unit quantity of information is a bit or a trit (does quit come next?) until a range of variation is determined.

So as I point out in my essay, the concept of either/or choices arises in the context of learning about the larger subject of magnitude - and it is necessarily so. But the object-constancy perception is a key part of the way we characterize discrete units of things, be they 'it' (objects, particles, ...) or 'bit' (a binary digit). But it is subtle, and not binary. It is arguable that distant things are perceived as less tangible, for example, because they lack immanence.

Key to figuring out if information actually sees an unending increase, due to contextuality, is the question whether it can be known that a 'reset' to an earlier state has occurred, without some necessarily contextual measurement that again disturbs that state, or adds new information because it has a slightly different measurement basis. While on the one hand a reset might hypothetically happen, the statement immediately following assures we can never verify that it is true.

Comments?

Jonathan

I wanted to add this;

On further thought.. Maybe we never form a concept of the absence of a thing, in childhood, except as a subset of the property of distance - hence the word gone. So the abstract concept of being/not being is much more cerebral, and develops in the brain much later.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Dear All

Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this "I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

Further on, he advises the readers "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

Did he says anything about Wheeler's "It from Bit" other than what he said above?

Than Tin

I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. I think your thread was one affected by this.

I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I rated it very highly.

Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

Best wishes,

Antony

My pleasure Ian,

I've now rated it according to my comments!

Best wishes & well done!

Antony

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Ian - truly outstanding. I loved your essay from beginning to end.

You have soundly connected so many interesting dots, and produced an impeccable argument for Bit from It.

My favorite statement:

"Thus contextually provides a means by which a quantum state can essentially be 'reset' ".

I think you hit the nail on the head, or at least one more nail in the coffin of it from bit. However, I believe the question of the continuum may still be up in the air.

Thank you for drawing my attention to Schumacker & Westmoreland's definition of information. (the ability to distinguish reliably between possible alternatives). A truly insightful find.

I would like to draw your attention to a point I made in my essay, which I believe is congruent with this definition of information, and which relates to figure 1 in your paper.

Your figure 1 assumes a single traversal of a quantum particle from one side of the apparatus to the other. Let me pose an absurd idea: what if we are staring at the truth in plain sight: that our confusions regarding quantum theory are all based on this simple unexamined assumption?

What if the particle goes backward and forward an uncountable number of times before it is detected? I describe this idea in detail in my essay.

Kind regards, Paul

Dear Ian,

I apologized for not getting to your essay sooner than I had planed. However, I am so glad I did for it was a breath of fresh air to read. I found your statement, "An object that is not ideal is said to be partial. So, given a domain that includes both Honus Wagner and his baseball card, Honus Wagner would be a maximal element while his baseball card would be partial... A measurement is then understood as a particular type of mapping on a domain that formalizes the notion of information content." to be true to the core and reflective of the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently completed. Although you have a much different approach and analogy to the topic than I do, I found your essay to be enjoyable, insightful, and most worthy of merit.

I wonder how much the Honus Wagner baseball card is now worth? Priceless... like your essay.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Ian,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.