• Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)

  • The Physical Limitations on Mathematical Abstraction, the Representational Effect of Mathematics on Physical Explanation, and the Resulting Expansion of Computability by Steven P Sax

Hello Steve,

You are obviously very knowledgeable about what you have written about.

While one will not like to disagree with an expert, I will like you to consider that the domain of the theory of Special relativity which is said to be flat space cannot apply to Earth-based experimental findings, since the Earth is not without gravity. Indeed, space on the Moon would be much flatter than space on Earth given its lower gravity. Do you agree?

Then talking about the relationship between mathematical representation and physical explanation that you chose as your topic, based on your expertise can you explain how the mathematical representation of a line can be divided, if it consists an infinite number of points and I presume a point cannot be mathematically or physically divided or can it?

My essay has more of a philosophical flavor and so may not be your cup of tea. If it is however, you may drop me some comments as I have agonized there how a line can be cut when what it consists of cannot. Eckard Blumschein and one other drew my attention to proposals from Dedekind and C.S. Peirce on how to attempt this.

Regards,

Akinbo

You have brought out a good point in your work that there is not one mathematical basis in which everything is decidable.

This extends many branches of thoughts for fruition.

Liked it.

- Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Hi Steve,

As I told you in my FQXi page, I have read your intriguing Essay. Here are some comments:

1) I agree with your statement that "physical theories are never "proven" per se". I add that theories are not perfect, in the sense that they do not exactly represent the reality, but only an ideal approximation of it.

2) The statement "gravity became geometry, forming the bedrock of general relativity" is the core of my Essay!

3) Concerning Planck substituting discrete values for changing the Rayleigh‐Jean law, he claimed that he introduced discrete values in despair! I recently did something similar in black hole physics finding discrete values for Hawking radiation. In fact, non strict thermality implies countability of subsequent emitted quanta. I have been strongly attacked for this by various "orthodox" physicists. In any case, your discussion in pages 4-7 is interesting also in the framework of my recent research in black hole physics.

4) Your concluding insight 3) seems consistent with anthropic principle.

Finally, I found very interesting and enjoyable the reading of your nice Essay. It surely deserves the highest score that I immediately give you.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Steven,

I was impressed with the fact that your writing style was rigorous and yet entertaining at the same time. The historically influenced developments of certain important milestones in physics and mathematics that you discussed were interesting and instructive.

I was not as impressed with the latter parts that got speculative, but everyone is entitled to speculate. After all, speculations indicate what needs to be worked on next (in the mind of the one speculating).

But a separate point I wished to make here is to address what I think is a misconception on the part of some commenters above. Their writing appears to indicate that you have resolved the Liar's Paradox (and you did not work hard to dispel that idea in your replies). All you have done in your essay is show that a statement about the Liar's Paradox will have a decided truth value. The Liar's Paradox still stands undecided. In other words, if you make a "statement" that the Liar's Paradox (stated in its normal form) is false, then you will be able to say that that "statement" is false (since the LP is undecided). The LP can be nested (you call it expanded) within the "statement" about it, making it appear as a single statement, essentially making the "statement" non-self-referential. But then you have not dealt with self-referential statements! A minor criticism, perhaps.

It may help with the Halting problem, but it does not get around the Liar's Paradox in a logical sense (you just will have to have a 2nd statement about it (i.e. about a self-referential statement in a program), integrated in such a way as to bypass the self-referential line).

All in all, good work.

En

    4 days later

    FYI:My Essay 2408 error corrections @

    Chicago Section AAPT

    Spring Meeting 2015 - Glenbrook South High School

    April 11, 2015

    8:15-8:45

    Registration and Continental Breakfast

    8:50-9:00

    Welcome and Introductions - John Lewis - Host

    9:00 -9:15

    Dimensionless Dualities

    Ted Erikson - R/E UnLtd. - sdog1@sbcglobal.net

    Thanks for enjoying my essay. The last section "Several Concluding Insights for Further Research" is laid out such that each successive point explores and overlaps with a wider range of research. Hopefully I can continue to use the comment threads to expand upon those four points, and I'll use this response as part of that.

    Point #1 derives a significant conclusion of how a self referential operation applied twice does indeed lead to a definite state. This provides confidence to the physical explanation of one half pulse bringing the qubit into superposition and then another half pulse bringing it back to a definite state; furthermore this gives additional insight not only into the self referential representation for such physical phenomena, but into the physical requirements necessary to understand a self referential operation. Point #1 is thus a direct extension from the previous section which introduces the self referential operation and lays out its significance in seeking the limits of computability. There are some excellent questions raised above expanding on this point which are also part of my research.

    Point #2 is already brought out more in the comments above. See in particular the dialogue I have with Lawrence Crowell. This develops into an equivalence between (Godel's) Incompleteness and (Heisenberg's) Uncertainty - in its own right this interfaces math and physics.

    Point #3 might be a fun exercise if anything to consider, especially if more rigorously analyzed. It also may tap into how deep the self referential concept lies in the most fundamental understanding of the universe, because a self referential operation so applied suggests a superposition of "MUH compliant" and "not MUH compliant" , but MUH already should incorporate the concept of superposition. If superposition must be invoked even within an explanation that supposedly already incorporates superposition, then this would have to be explained by a theory in which superposition is yet but an emergent concept.

    Point #4 aptly then is perhaps the most exploratory but is relevant to consider. I received feedback from others on it and I see there are other essays throughout FQXI forums that touch on consciousness. The key postulate in this point ties consciousness to causality, which is an interesting explanation given that causality is a key requirement for computation. The idea opens the door for discussion on the connection between nonlocality and a deeper understanding of superposition, as well as a thorough explanation of the balancing between nonlocality and statistics in order to maintain causality. I think it then could provide some description of the environment necessary for consciousness along the lines of an anthropic principle - namely that if consciousness is a product of causality, or at least requires it, then a physical universe in which conscious beings such as ourselves exist would be the one in which physical principles can at least be perceived by us to maintain causality.

    --------

    Most importantly, it seems that others as well have been interested in these points and helped develop them throughout the threads, so I'm glad to see these ideas pursued and utilized. Including here, I hope to continue in that dialogue.

    You mentioned your other comment on the Liar Paradox as separate, so I will address it in another response.

    Traveling extensively, but will try to answer several of the comments here by Monday morning. Lots of good ideas and questions, thank you and good luck!

    Simplicity is a result of equilibrium, and seeking simplicity is a human specific preference

    Simplicity is that a relative few theories and mathematical models can explain a number of phenomena. While complexity is the opposite where there seems to be an unending need to invent new theories. By this definition, physics and astronomy are in the former camp and social science and biology belong to the latter.

    Why is the universe is even understandable? This itself is hard to understand according to Einstein. I propose a line of reasoning here. Simplicity is a result of long term evolution in a close system. The resulting equilibrium gives rise to simplicity. The infinite possibilities of any member of the system have been largely reduced to a highly confined options. Most of the possibilities are prohibited due to forces that have long been cancelled out during the long evolution. Because of this simplicity, there appears to be causal effect. In other words, causal effect is a direct product of simplicity. Take our universe as an example, the universe is in equilibrium by and large. Only a handful forces remain. Because there are relatively few forces and laws, the universe appears to be orderly and thereby allows mathematics to even exist and work. Mathematics owes its existence to the equilibrium of the universe. Equilibrium brings orderliness and slowness to change. Just imagine, if one puts one stone by another stone, and because the stones decay so fast, by the end of this action of moving them together, one counts zero stone. The law of addition will be forever different from what we know today. In this sense, math and physics have 'this worldliness' feature, and is a localized knowledge to this universe at this phase of equilibrium. It could be vastly different in other possible states of the universe or other universes.

    One notable exception to the simplicity in universe is the complexity in bio-sphere. Because the bio-sphere is inherently expansive and interactive, we cannot reduce the theories to a few laws and mathematics models. The bio-sphere is NOT an equilibrium system. Therefore it is very hard to apply causal effect to explain human society for instance. It is very hard to generalize theories or apply mathematics in bio-sphere or human society, as we are able to in cosmology.

    Humans' brain is wired to understand simple things and not complex things. We seek patterns and generalize. This skill helps tremendously in our evolutionary past. For instance, our eyes are adept in figuring out linear movement. Our eyes are especially good at spotting moving object in a static background. The predisposition to seek simplicity gave humans survival advantage in its evolutionary history. We appreciate simplicity over complexity. Humans process limited computational power. It is most efficient to apply the limited resource to a fast algorithm. The design principal of the fast algorithm is simplicity. There is an aesthetic side of simplicity, whether it is a new physics theory or a design of a gadget. The propensity of seeking simplicity is a very human specific trait, and has nothing to do with the reality whether the world is simple or complex.

    The coincidence of the simplicity of the universe and human's preference of simplicity is fortunate and fruitful. Specifically in the math and physics the coincidence yielded amazing results. There is no reason to doubt that more amazing discoveries will surface in the future. However, a grain of salt must be added so that we are conscious that there is less mysterious processes or agent involved in the coincidence. This article hopefully explained why.

    Dear 'En Passant,'

    Regarding your comment on the Liar Paradox, when you mentioned regarding some commenters that "their writing appears to indicate..." which commenters in particular do you mean? If you have a question on a commenter, please ask him/her directly in the same thread as their comment, as it may just be your misunderstanding.

    It is very necessary indeed that the Liar Paradox - and more generally a self referential scenario - remains undecided. This allows it to be represented by a superposition of states and physically manifested by examples such as given in my essay, most prominently the qubit. That's a clear point in my essay and the comments above help flush out related concepts; I simply don't see anyone suggesting the Liar Paradox does not remain undecided. So the misconception may be yours (and the only idea that needs to be dispelled is your false assumption of those commenters and your imposed interpretation of their comments onto me without first confirming - hopefully I'm dispelling that now).

    What is so profound is that this very undecidability goes from being a limitation to instead an expansion of computability, when the mathematical and physical requirements of undecidability are mutually considered.

    Thank you for acknowledging that the self referential operator applied twice may help with the Halting problem - THAT is a major goal of my essay and one that has significant repercussions for computation in general, and one that saliently addresses this forum topic. Whether it takes a second programming statement per se is fine. After all, the physical phenomena indeed requires a second pulse to take the qubit out of superposition. It would be a more subtlely engineered piece of code requiring quantum computing systems (i.e. ones that allow superposed states, qubits) on which to run, and I'd be interested in how you might approach it. Perhaps taking it back to a more linguistic formulation can help. (Also, you're right in that the twice applied SF operator may be considered a nested statement. In the context of my essay, applying the statement again linguistically would require expanding out the full explanation of the statement, in order to work out the logic to completion).

    As a side point, "resolving" could even mean "dealing with it" depending on the context. It's important when commenting to try to stick to specific mathematical or physical ideas and not get caught up so much in others' elations or expressions of praise. A specific question then would be "does this suggest the Liar Paradox can be decided?" The answer is it remains undecided. In fact, we're all counting on that.

    Steve

    ...I just realized my last point above might have come out as a pun (and an intriguing one at that). I simply meant: the answer is that the Liar Paradox remains undecided. And that's a useful outcome.

    Thanks again, Steve

    Hi Jon,

    Thanks so much for your very thoughtful questions and contributions. You brought up a lot of topics, so I may need a couple responses to address them all:

    1) In the Penrose-Hameroff model of Orchestrated Objective Reduction, consciousness involves brain activities that may utilize quantum computation, but nevertheless which still tie to some higher fundamental reality. Rather than try to fully explain consciousness, my point focuses more on the relationship between consciousness, experience, and causality. Tying consciousness to causality is an interesting explanation given that causality is a key requirement for computation. In The Emperor's New Mind, Penrose discusses some very interesting scenarios relating to causality. Although the Penrose interpretation tends to conflict with the multiverse explanation, nevertheless the connection between nonlocality and superposition may offer some mutual understanding, and the fact that some experiments have been proposed to test some of these explanations (for example FELIX and the table-top optical cavity variation) is refreshing. Perhaps the Platonic approach in Penrose-Hameroff may spring from simply a humble recognition that since we utilize our consciousness to examine these concepts, we would never be able to fully explain consciouness itself - this then takes on a form of Godel incompleteness. Pertinently then the self referential concept plays a role, and this relates to self-awareness. Of course to properly delve into this, one would need to have at least a partial, workable definition of consciousness and what it means to be self-aware (and the correlation exactly between the two). To be aware of oneself perhaps could be casted or modeled as a conscious role outside oneself. Thus, to be conscious of oneself perhaps requires consciousness to be perceived as if from some other state. Thus consciousness applied to itself would be not itself. If this could be represented by some form of superposition, any corresponding physical manifestation would require the statistical nature of quantum mechanics to maintain causal order, which as postulated is needed to maintain the consciousness. Again, this would require some working definitions which overlap with other philosophical concepts. (Thanks for the video link and that's interesting about the zen approach to non-self - in some ways that description addresses the undecidability about self). I want to keep it more technical but the point I'll leave on regarding the consciousness/causality connection is that it could provide some description of the environment necessary for consciousness along the lines of an anthropic principle - namely that if consciousness is a product of causality, or at least requires it, then a physical universe in which conscious beings such as ourselves exist would be the one in which physical principles can at least be perceived by us to maintain causality.

    2) Yes, I see how we both discuss the restrictions on how a Turing machine can process a tape, and your question of whether this constraint is physical or informational is the heart of the Holographic Principle as I briefly pointed out. My reference from Bousso is a great resource for that and actually asserts a specific ratio, namely that the area of any surface limits the information content of adjacent spacetime regions, at 1.4Г--1069 bits per square meter. A universal relation between geometry and information is educed that links the number of fundamental degrees of freedom involved in a uniп¬Ѓed description of spacetime and matter. It's quite fascinating.

    I'll continue my response to the rest of your questions in another comment.

    Thanks,

    Steve

    Hi Jon,

    You asked an excellent question following through on the half pulse manifestation of the self-referential operator. Let me first clear up some of your questions on the technical infrastructure in the Rubidium setup:

    A laser whose output power is constant over time is called a continuous wave laser and this is what was used in the setup. This is opposed to pulsed operation in which the optical power appears in pulses of some duration at some repetition rate (such as in a Q-switching or mode-locking laser). For continuous wave operation it's required for the population inversion of the gain medium to be continually replenished by a steady pump source. Even a laser whose output is normally continuous can be intentionally turned on and off at some rate in order to create pulses of light (the modulation rate is on time scales much slower than the cavity lifetime and the time period over which energy can be stored in the lasing medium or pumping mechanism, and it's still classified as a modulated or pulsed yet nevertheless continuous wave laser) - it is this type of pulse that's being shined on the Rubidium atom in the setup. Pulse of laser light thus refers to a duration of time in which the laser is being shined on the atom, necessary to excite the electron to the excited state. The half pulse refers to shining the laser light for half this duration of time on the atom.

    Now, one half pulse (i.e. shining this continuous wave laser on the Rubidium atom for this half-duration time) causes the electron to go into superposition of the ground and excited states. Another half pulse excites it to the definitive excited state. This corresponds to two self referential operators, but that's the key: whatever the physical mechanism is, it is one that manifests the self referential operator. In representing a qubit, the most general state of a quantum two-level system can be written in the form ∣ψ〉 = α ∣0〉 + β∣1〉 where α and β are complex numbers. The state has to be normalized, so ∣α∣^2 + ∣β∣^2 = 1, and an overall phase makes no difference, so either α or β can be chosen to be real. This leads to the parametrization ∣ψ 〉 = cos (θ/2)∣0〉+ (e^iφ) sin (θ/2)∣1〉 in terms of only two real numbers θ and φ, with ranges 0 ≤ θ ≤ π and 0 ≤ φ ≤ 2π. These are the same as the polar angles in 3-dimensional spherical coordinates, and this leads to the representation of the state as a point on a unit sphere called the Bloch sphere. The Bloch sphere can be traveled with pulses of different lengths and the system driven from the superposition state to the ground or excited states. But this can be done only during a certain amount of time which is called the coherence time. It can vary from several microseconds to several seconds depending on the particular system. When this period is over the system has to be initialized again in the ground state. If the phase of the driving field is fixed, the system will be going in one direction, but if phase is changed by π, the rotation axis in the Bloch representation is changed, and in that case the system might rotate in the reverse direction (for example around -x axis instead of the x-axis). One can also change the phase by π/2 which would result in a mirror image of the state. For example if a π/sqrt(2) pulse is shined and then the axis is changed from x to y, the coefficients of the two states in the superposition are reversed. So the physical manifestation for a self referential operator may not be the same half pulse but rather may change - but this makes sense: there are different physical paths as we see to get back to the ground state; hence there are different physical manifestations for the NOT operator. It then follows there would be different manifestations for the SQR (NOT) and thus for a self referential operator at that particular point. There's lots of research being done on these variations (and part of my own personal research) and I hope this can be shifted to the engineering of self-referential operator gates which would be an extremely fascinating field.

    Hi Jon,

    You asked an excellent question following through on the half pulse manifestation of the self-referential operator. Let me first clear up some of your questions on the technical infrastructure in the Rubidium setup:

    A laser whose output power is constant over time is called a continuous wave laser and this is what was used in the setup. This is opposed to pulsed operation in which the optical power appears in pulses of some duration at some repetition rate (such as in a Q-switching or mode-locking laser). For continuous wave operation it's required for the population inversion of the gain medium to be continually replenished by a steady pump source. Even a laser whose output is normally continuous can be intentionally turned on and off at some rate in order to create pulses of light (the modulation rate is on time scales much slower than the cavity lifetime and the time period over which energy can be stored in the lasing medium or pumping mechanism, and it's still classified as a modulated or pulsed yet nevertheless continuous wave laser) - it is this type of pulse that's being shined on the Rubidium atom in the setup. Pulse of laser light thus refers to a duration of time in which the laser is being shined on the atom, necessary to excite the electron to the excited state. The half pulse refers to shining the laser light for half this duration of time on the atom.

    Now, one half pulse (i.e. shining this continuous wave laser on the Rubidium atom for this half-duration time) causes the electron to go into superposition of the ground and excited states. Another half pulse excites it to the definitive excited state. This corresponds to two self referential operators, but that's the key: whatever the physical mechanism is, it is one that manifests the self referential operator. In representing a qubit, the most general state of a quantum two-level system can be written in the form ∣ψ〉 = α ∣0〉 + β∣1〉 where α and β are complex numbers. The state has to be normalized, so ∣α∣^2 + ∣β∣^2 = 1, and an overall phase makes no difference, so either α or β can be chosen to be real. This leads to the parametrization ∣ψ 〉 = cos (θ/2)∣0〉+ (e^iφ) sin (θ/2)∣1〉 in terms of only two real numbers θ and φ, with ranges 0 ≤ θ ≤ π and 0 ≤ φ ≤ 2π. These are the same as the polar angles in 3-dimensional spherical coordinates, and this leads to the representation of the state as a point on a unit sphere called the Bloch sphere. The Bloch sphere can be traveled with pulses of different lengths and the system driven from the superposition state to the ground or excited states. But this can be done only during a certain amount of time which is called the coherence time. It can vary from several microseconds to several seconds depending on the particular system. When this period is over the system has to be initialized again in the ground state. If the phase of the driving field is fixed, the system will be going in one direction, but if phase is changed by π, the rotation axis in the Bloch representation is changed, and in that case the system might rotate in the reverse direction (for example around the -x axis instead of the x-axis). One can also change the phase by π/2 which would result in a mirror image of the state. For example if a π/sqrt(2) pulse is shined and then the axis is changed from x to y, the coefficients of the two states in the superposition are reversed. So the physical manifestation for a self referential operator may not be the same half pulse but rather may change - but this makes sense: there are different physical paths as we see to get back to the ground state; hence there are different physical manifestations for the NOT operator. It then follows there would be different manifestations for the SQR (NOT) and thus for a self referential operator at that particular point. There's lots of research being done on these variations (and part of my own personal research) and I hope this can be shifted to the engineering of self-referential operator gates which would be an extremely fascinating field.

    Thanks again,

    Steve Sax

    Dear Stephen,

    Thanks for your precipitately brilliant essay.Your allusions on the imperative of a dichotomy free maths-physics relations occasioned by "computation" is commendable.It is even much more pleasurable as it obliquely concurs with the reasoning behind my essay,which I hope you will take a look at.

    Keep the flag flying.

    Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.

    I apologize if this appears somewhere more than once.

    I could swear I posted this answer somewhere already. I hope it wasn't my bank account, because they are already confused enough.

    Dear Steve,

    Now that it is clearly stated that self-referential statements remain undecided, there are no further issues.

    It might be that I misunderstood a commenter's intended meaning, and perhaps there wasn't anything to clear up at all.

    Referring to your "After all, the physical phenomena indeed requires a second pulse to take the qubit out of superposition. It would be a more subtly engineered piece of code requiring quantum computing systems (i.e. ones that allow superposed states, qubits) on which to run, and I'd be interested in how you might approach it."

    Firstly, I will qualify the following by saying that I am not a computer programmer, and I know even less about QC. But the logical principle would have to work the way I will describe.

    The "general" part of the program will have to only deal with the output coming from that part of the program (however many lines it may be) that causes the whole thing to be self-referential. The self-referential part will have to do its processing in "isolation", and whatever it comes up with will be represented in a statement about it, and that statement will be what can be processed by the "general" part of the program. I will give you an example from MS Excel, since that is what I am familiar with. If you wish, you could type the following into MS Excel, and look at the underlying VBA code (which can be viewed within Excel) to see how the actual programming handles this, but I am not sure about the applicability of that to QC.

    Say you have a column (list) of numbers, and a sum of the numbers in that column is at the bottom of the column. But one member of the list has to be calculated on the total of that list (say, as a percentage of 5% the total of the list), including itself. For this example, assume that the list of numbers being added occupies the range from A1.A10, and the sum of the "above" is located in cell A11 (and let's say the member of the list that is causing "self-referential trouble" is in cell A6). What you would do is the following. Within cell A6, you would type a summation formula: =(SUM(A1:A5)+SUM(A7:A10))*0.05+(SUM(A1:A5)+SUM(A7:A10))*0.05*0.05+(SUM(A1:A5)+SUM(A7:A10))*0.05*0.05*0.05+(SUM(A1:A5)+SUM(A7:A10))*0.05*0.05*0.05*0.05

    At this point its precision is only 4 decimal points, but you could extend it to any length to obtain any amount of precision (beyond what we can practically handle). You might call it "iterations," or, expansions. I have to disagree with you (or at least alter the language), that you are "processing" the self-referential statement twice (or more). You are processing the statement about the self-referential statement several times, each based on the preceding statement.

    Don't bother defending yourself. Nobody cares if what you said is perfect. Your idea is right.

    However, the "trick" will be in how to apply this to the "mechanical" example you describe in your essay. That will take a gifted programmer, and a gifted experimenter. I am neither one of those.

    En

    Thanks Michel for your very insightful comments and references. It's amazing how the self-referential operator can take on many different forms. I want to just clarify a couple important distinctions that I sense you were aiming to bringing out: The macroscale "classical" coin flip CF that randomizes the input is indeed idempotent, as any number N of CF operations in sequence are equivalent to a single one: CF^N = CF like you exemplified. But it is not a self-referential operation per se. Idempotence is related to referential transparency with regard to computation in that an expression can be replaced by it's value without changing the behavior of the program and this might be what you meant. But the self-referential operation (SF) results in undecidability; in the representation of qubits this would take the system to a superposition of states. SF^2 = NOT, and would not be equivalent to the original SF operator. In this sense the QCF (quantum coin flip) of Hayes would indeed be a form of the self-referential operator - it's a fascinating distinction. That's very interesting how you combined the Hadamard and Pauli Z gates - I want to make sure we're using the same terminology on the shift gate but I very much like your ingenuity to engineer these gate combinations; it's really quite grand how this can be built up. Just to review for posterity: the Hadamard operation is similar to a SF (and thus SQR(NOT) ) operation in that both take the system to superposition, but a second Hadamard operation returns the system to the original state while a second SF as we know takes it to NOT of the original state. For example,

    H(0>) = superposition 0> 1>, H.H(0>) = 0>.

    H(1>) = superposition 0> - 1>, H.H(1>) = 1>.

    SF(0>) = superposition 0> 1>, SF.SF(0>) = 1>.

    SF(1>) = superposition 1> - 0>, SF.SF(1>) = -0>.

    That's absolutely stimulating Michel that you connected these concepts to the time entanglement from my other essay and thanks for engaging that. Time entanglement is quite profound and your connection here of that to the CNOT gate in view the SF operator, undecidability, and incompleteness as explained in my current essay is an excellent observation - thanks very much.

    I very much enjoyed your comments, and look forward to reading and rating your essay very soon.

    Steve Sax

    Dear Steven,

    I am glad that you found my reading of your excellent essay useful. Our discussion shows how much a 'correct' interpretation of what is going on in a physical experiment depends on the 'correct' maths. I am enthusiastic in your view that Goedel's incompleteness is (at least partially) related to the classical language and that the QM language is helpful on that matter, and similarly for the issue of self-reference.

    As a clever physicist, I am sure you are also sensitive to the ongoing work about rubidium and the CNOT gate where entanglement between ligth and atoms has been established, e.g.

    http://www.cos.gatech.edu/news/Researchers-Report-First-Entanglement-between-Light-and-an-Optical-Atomic-Coherence

    I am also happy that you were not frightened by my (may be too ambitious) topic and I thank you for your high mark. I already rated your essay highly at the time I studied it.

    My best regards,

    Michel

    Steven,

    Thanks for your kind comments and for flagging up your essay. I found myself in agreement with most all, and more importantly found further new aspects. I have a comprehensive chapter in draft on the matters of predicate logic which you may be interested in previewing. Another chapter goes deeper into the issues with Cartesian systems and motion, suggesting non point particles and Pauli (etc) exclusion confound understanding. More to the point I hope you may read my (joint) recent (related) quasi classical reproduction of QM's prediction, causal but not entirely deterministic. The false assumptions used leading the the logical failure are identified (without socks).

    Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.

    I do hope you'll read and comment as you may be one of the few who'll even understand it ('knowing QM' is a modest encumbrance).

    But this is about your essay; applause and full marks, if only for; "never PROVE.." (I live in a recurring nightmare being told the contrary!) in line with Dyson "there are no 'facts' in physics'. But not only for that.

    Thanks and congratulations

    Peter

    Hey Steve,

    Thanks for the thorough response.

    1)All that consciousness and causality talk made my head hurt:) The only thing that really sunk in was how you tied it into the anthropic principle at the end. Although your statement that "conscious of oneself perhaps requires consciousness to be perceived as if from some other state. Thus consciousness applied to itself would be not itself," reminded me of a Cantor diagonalization over the denumerable, computable reals to construct a non-computable real...in a computable kind of way. Diagonalization has always bothered me. In my opinion, it presupposes non-computability into existence. I guess this relates to my essay.

    2) I am going to check out that Bousso reference! Thanks!

    3)Regarding your second reply: Thanks for the explanation on what a "half pulse" is. I think I understood a significant amount of your explanation (and the mathematics that goes along with it), but since I have never actually seen the experiment, I still feel a little lost. One last question... A "digital physics"/deterministic question: How do you know that the Rubidium electron is in a superposition state with the half pulse? How do you know that it isn't either definitively in the excited state, or the ground state? Is there something analogous to an interference pattern that is observable?

    Thanks again for your thoughts!

    Jon

    Dear Steve,

    Very enjoyable and interesting essay. I like that you explained and illustrated the dance between math and physics, and the result of this. I wish you do well in the contest!

    Best regards,

    Cristi