This article does not compute without a lot of background information. For example, someone invented an new term for quantum phase coherence which is renamed contextuality. Great, that is what we need...anopther term to describe something that we do not understand understand in the first place.

Here is a blurb from a past article that would have been helpful here:

"The term "contextuality" simply refers to the weird way in which a property of a quantum particle can depend on the context of the experiments you do to investigate it, even if there seems to be no good reason why that should be so. "It's like the colour of your socks affecting the experiment," says Joseph Emerson, an FQXi member and quantum physicist at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, who also researches this area of physics. (See "The Quantum Truth Seeker.") This doesn't hold true in the everyday macroscopic world: a given playing card in a deck is either black or red, and it stays that way regardless of whether anyone looks at it or not, or the way in which they look. This steadfastness does not always apply to quantum systems, where properties may not be set until they are observed, and when and how measurements are carried out can change the outcome of the experiment."

Yes. Ordinary classical reality does not decohere very fast and so we think of classical gravity reality as permanent. A playing card is either red or black...but that will that be true for all time. In ten years, one thousand years, or one million years, the playing card will indeed be something else. In other words, even our classical reality is subject to a very slow decoherence rate. The usually very slow classical decoherence gives us the illusion of permanence and locality.

In contrast to classical states, quantum states usually decohere very rapidly into classical states. What seems strange is that quantum states can actually remain coherent for very long times and over very long time separations. This kind of phase coherence makes no classical sense, i.e., that we can know the state of a particle across the universe just because we know the state of an entangled particle right here right now.

Any discussion about qubits that does not include decoherence rates leaves out a necessary factor for any quantum computer. Decoherence is more than just the inevitable scrambling of information. Decoherence provides the key for understanding all of our quantum reality.

    Why do you utterly confuse unreasonable codswallop with acceptable truth? You wrote: "Yes. Ordinary classical reality does not decohere very fast and so we think of classical gravity reality as permanent." Did you mean that extraordinary unclassical reality does cohere very slowly while you think either that unclassical gravity, or classical levity was temporary? The real unique Universe am infinite.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    I am afraid that I do not understand what you have said.

    Do you believe in quantum computing with qubits?

    Do you believe in quantum phase coherence?

    That's an excellent point, Rob.

    Without an extra degree of freedom, there is no way to show that quantum mechanics demonstrates more than it assumed in the first place.

    With an extra degree of freedom, entanglement fails.

    In fact. if anyone is interested, I have a draft paper on quantum contextuality at ResearchGate:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275962863_Special_Relativity_and_the_Origin_of_Probability

    Rob,

    I suspect that complex representation with Hermitian symmetry seemingly adds an additional dimension while it actually merely adds arbitrarily chosen redundancy. May physics suffer from unwarranted interpretation in this case too? I expect you to confirm that real part and imaginary part, magnitude and phase are not necessarily independent from each other. Shouldn't we ask ourselves how to interpret such degeneration? While Schroedinger still admitted being not sure, the crowd took his trick that is equivalent to Heisenberg's square matrices as a gospel up to now. I maintain that triangular matrices, IR+ instead of IR and cosine instead of Fourier transformation provide in principle an alternative to the unquestionably more advantageous use of the imaginary unit i.

    ++++

    I know for an absolute fact that I can prove that the real unique Universe am infinite. I know for an absolute fact that I can prove that finite abstract quantum computing with finite abstract qubits is a real physical impossibility. I know that the statement of there being any finite abstract quantum phase coherence is utter codswallop.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Kuepfmueller's 1924 uncertainty refers to two different values either 1 or 1/2 where the latter one results from the assumption of positive and negative frequencies. I guess 1/2 is correct and agrees with Heisenberg's 1927 uncertainty. If only the physicists didn't doubt that the restriction to positive elapsed time necessarily implies to accept negative frequencies. Dirac rejected in a textbook negative frequency and he was certainly not the only one.

    ++++

      Is certainty finite? If so, then one cannot be finitely uncertain about certainty can one?

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Since you do not believe in quantum phase coherence, there is no sense to any discourse. It is not clear why you even bother to comment.

      Thanks so much for that reference:

      Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 26, 2015 @ 17:46 GMT as "In fact. if anyone is interested, I have a draft paper on quantum contextuality at ResearchGate:

      863_Special_Relativity_and_the_Origin_of_Probability">Special relativity and the origin of probability](https://https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275962

      863_Special_Relativity_and_the_Origin_of_Probability)"

      You do not mention Category theory or Moldoveanu's algebraic arguments, elliptic composability. What about these?

      Hi Steve,

      Moldoveanu's contention that the laws of physics are invariant under additional degrees of freedom is fundamentally wrong-headed.

      It would deny quantum mechanics any dimension at all, save the 1-dimension real line. And that is correct as far as it goes -- metric spaces. I agree that is the proper domain of quantum mechanics (as my proof for what I call Khrennikov's theorem establishes). A very useful concept for information theory, not for foundations.

      The Hilbert space quantum formalism is two-dimensional. M's translation to a "para-Hilbert space" deprives complex analysis of its power to generate both real and complex solutions, since he has discarded the fundamental theorem of algebra. In any case, if my informal proof is correct -- the physical existence of reversibility in 2 dimensions contradicts irreversibility in 1 dimension, and favors a topological theory.

      In any case, though M implies (reductio ad absurdum) that the only physics is either classical or quantum, there's nothing classical about his theory. Nor even necessarily physical.

      My approach is compatible with category theory.

      The FUNDAMENTAL quantum reality state balances being and experience AND is NECESSARILY one OF INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE SPACE IN FUNDAMENTAL EQUILIBRIUM AND BALANCE CONSISTENT WITH HALF GRAVITY AND HALF INERTIA.

      • [deleted]

      I really enjoyed reading this article. See a response to Jozen-Bo which I wrote in 2008:

      This theory of an information system directly affecting the physiological function of the eye is an absolutely true statement. Reality is entirely all-inclusive. It includes all the beliefs as well as the facts, all the mental and the physical sides. There is a complete absence of separation. The dark is absence of light. Light is truth and cannot be contradicted unless by lying. And information systems like the internet are consisted of elements of truth and false statements that are analogous to real and unreal. That which appears to the human eye is information and the mind creates the interpretation. As reality is an all-inclusive set containing mental and physical elements, mind and reality cannot be separated. Reality is contained in the mind via perceptual awareness all at once these processes are creating and containing information. Perception takes place and awareness is the complex network of the creative consciousness in which reality appears. Thoughts that are both true or false are governed by perception. Perception of both the inner and outer halves of the body concept or object are happening in but one reality or the monic term infocognition. Each moment the creative mind contains mental and "physical" information.

        Dear Fellow,

        The real unique Universe am infinite. You wrote: "This theory of an information system directly affecting the physiological function of the eye is an absolutely true statement." All finite statements are unrealistic. Any abstract theory of any abstract information system abstractly affecting the abstract physiological function of an abstract eye is utter codswallop. You need to get real.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        • [deleted]

        WHY ONE MAY NEVER SEE GOD

        Because reality is hard to see. (Also see this thread).

        If we work on this premise, we can prevent deceiving ourselves by distinguishing the differences between God's work and blind nature's. One may walk around and experience one's fear rising in a pitch black room. Since mind is reality, you are transparent and your thoughts may become manifest unless one takes full control. According to Christopher Langan, we are transparent to the global conscious agency God, which means God is there in the room with us even in our most ignorant and fearful moments as God sees all. In regards to how and why God rarely responds to us I would think it is due to the fact that we must "go beyond" the everyday existence to reach Him and in return we may or may not be disappointed. I leave any further speculation on this matter to you the reader.

        http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-one-may-never-see-god.143202/

          • [deleted]

          According to the configuration space intepretation of quantum mechanics, the world of our perception is just a projection of an incredibly high dimensional configuration space. Again, this interpretation of quantum mechanics is realist in that the space of all configurations has its existence and properties quite independent from our observations. But once again, this configuration space is perceptually inaccessible to us -- we can only see the effects it has within our much smaller three-dimensional space. The upshot, as before, is that if you really believe quantum mechanics, then you believe that the physical world outruns our perceptions of it.

          Taken from: https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-mechanics-suggest-about-our-perceptions-reality

          Nicholas I Hosein, Idealist

            • [deleted]

            The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy.

            "The identity between the world and Brahman is explained. On this ground that all is known when the "one" is known is accounted for. Since all entities are real only as the effects of Brahman and as ensouled by Brahman, it has been said, "That is True". In no other way are they real. Just as, in the illustration of clay and its products, the products are real only as of the nature of clay, even so the world is only as sustained by the indwelling Brahman. [10]

            The universal, omniscient backdrop of Brahman as the primary stage for all further acts and scenes of the evolutionary drama, Maya, as described in Vedanta, explains the onset of the multiple layers of differentiated Consciousness, Mind, Brain, Matter, actually in the reverse, as manifestations, that are distinct and yet one and the same as the original consciousness. A logical fallacy it would seem but defended as follows. "The signfication of an identical entity by several terms which are applied to that entity on different grounds is coordinated predication. In the illustration of (say) a Purple Robe, the basic substance is one and the same, though purpleness and robeness are different from it as well as from each other. That is how the unity of a Purple Robe is established. The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance." [11]

            Taken from: http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2962

            Nicholas I Hosein, Idealist

              My dear fellow,

              Reality is easy to see, all you have to do is open your eyes. You mistakenly wrote: "Because reality is hard to see. (Also see this thread). If we work on this premise, we can prevent deceiving ourselves by distinguishing the differences between God's work and blind nature's." Reality is not dependent on any abstract we abstractly working on any abstract premise so that abstract we can abstractly prevent abstractly deceiving abstract us from abstractly distinguishing the abstract differences between an abstract God's abstract work and an abstract blind abstract nature's abstract work." Please stop thinking about abstract we and concentrate on the real you.

              Joe Fisher, Realist