World without World: Observer-Dependent Physics by Dean Rickles

Dear Dean Rickles,

I believe you're close to expressing Wheeler's conception when you state:

"The laws of physics... are heavily laden with material from humans devising such representation and laws.... The structure of the universe, on such views, is intimately connected with our own existence."

I would prefer to state that "the perceived structure of the universe... is intimately connected with our own existence." The structures we project on the universe [as discussed in my essay] do not actually change physical reality, but only our perception of physical reality.

Nor is it at all clear that mathematical laws, as artifacts of the mind are thereby "infused" with mind. They are and remain "mindless".

Schrödinger's remark about "mind and world" address mind and physical reality, not mathematical laws or poems. Poems or mathematical laws "generated" by mind are and remain "mindless". Nor do I see Ernst Cassirer's attempt to merge objective and subjective through wordy abstraction as relevant. I believe the problem arises when you state

"That laws are only ever 'objective'."

It is physical reality, the ground of being, that is objective, in the sense that when you jump off a tall building, you will go 'splat'. The attempt to formalize the rules, and hence derive Newton's F=ma or Einstein's curved space-time are only more or less 'objective', depending upon their congruence with reality. This is where Schrödinger's "gaps, lacunae, paradoxes..." arise - the mismatch of our imposed laws and objective reality. I discuss the projection of mathematical structure on physical reality in my essay, which I invite you to read.

I do agree that "physical reality is deemed tantamount to independent from some arbitrary observer." Physical reality is the territory; theories, descriptions, and models are the map. Your suggestion of "averaging over" the maps is perhaps one way to define 'consensus' reality.

Such confusion shows up in Eddington's "much of the 'stuff of the world' is 'spiritual' [now 'mental']. Although this is poorly worded, it is congruent with my thesis of a consciousness field that interacts with material reality [in the form of momentum density]. Nevertheless, to say that "the laws that we often suppose to be entirely mindless... are in fact products of the mind" does not in any way "infuse" laws with mind. They are, insofar as they can be said to exist, "mindless". They do not possess mind!

I think it nonsense for Eddington to claim that an intelligence "should be able to obtain all the knowledge of physics we have obtained by experiment." You are correct. It is absurd!

You then say "modern physics is beholden to more abstract ideals" and "it is possible that this use of mathematics imposes 'blinkers' on the view of the world." This is compatible with my "mindless laws as projections on reality" and I note that Rovelli concurs with this as I believe do Gambini and Pullin. This is not to agree with Wheeler's "bootstrap" and certainly not with Q'bism.

Despite that I disagree with many statements in your essay, nevertheless I do agree with the opening of your final paragraph - "that the world is in some sense mind stuff..., or at least infused with some kind of mind stuff...". The fact that this is such a nebulous statement is probably what causes you to back off a little in your last sentence.

My belief is that either consciousness arises when Lego blocks come together in such a way as to make dead matter magically self-aware, or else the universe is inherently conscious. As I believe it is the latter, then it is not enough to wave ones hands and say "mind stuff", or draw a cute picture as did Wheeler. If mind has any effect on matter then the laws of interest should be those describing the field and its interaction with matter. [Universal mind could be nothing but a field.] The description of the interaction between the field and matter is what makes it physics, whereas the fact is that the "operation" of the mind [essentially it's self-interaction and self-awareness] is beyond physics. That's the world we live in.

Thank you for an essay that focuses on how many have tried to say this, and how hard it is to say correctly.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

"a pressing problem of physics is to recognize that our role as observers is more deeply embedded in our theories and laws than is often realised."

Maybe there is a common language of possibilities. Laws say what's impossible and afford possibilities; an observer should see these possibilities and eliminate the impossibilities.

Hi Dean - thanks for a lively and very readable overview of the literature on the "participatory universe." But I'm afraid I disagree with the notion that the laws of physics are "infused with features of our cognitive framework." On the contrary, I think the reason we struggle so much to make sense of these issues is that our traditional framework is so badly suited to sorting out what's going on in physics, beyond the classical domain.

On the other hand, I'm much in sympathy with your selections from Wheeler's blackboard at the end. The universe is surely more than a "block" of given objective fact. But as I argue in my essay, what's wrong with our traditional approach is that it takes "observing" as a relation between objects and observers, leaving out the key issue, which is the context-structure needed to make information physically meaningful (i.e. observable, measurable, communicable). Objects and observers can't have a relationship by themselves: their interactive environment has to be able to define and convey information between them. As I've argued in previous FQXi essays, this is by no means a simple requirement.

We know that wherever a context of interaction exists that can determine something about a quantum system, there's a factual result. If we delete any important element of that context, or prevent the result from being communicated out to other systems (as in "quantum eraser"), then there remains a superposition of possible results. The only reason for bringing "the "observer" into this picture is that we don't have any theoretical description of the structure of these contexts. The basic problem is that they're recursive: to make any one parameter in physics observable requires a context in which other parameters are also measured... in other contexts.

Our current theories are excellent, but our cognitive framework makes us want to treat each component of physical reality in isolation, as if all the pieces of objective reality were complete and detachable in themselves. But there's no way even to define any part of this system without reference to the other parts. I think it's this interdependence of different types of empirical information that's the root of the difficulty in physics- not the deep mystery we create for ourselves by talking about "observers".

Thanks again for opening up this theme, highly relevant to the contest topic.

Conrad

"The viewpoint expressed in this essay is that a pressing problem is to recognize that our role as observers is more deeply embedded in our theories and laws that is often realized." The Copenhagen Interpretation seems to me to be a minimalist, agnostic epistemology that works extremely well in terms of its pragmatic success but might suffer a reverse from the Fredkin-Wolfram challenge.

Where Are the Dark Matter Particles?

My guess is that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own results -- despite the fact that I might be a minority of one in making this particular guess.

Dean,

Glad to see your focus on mindful/mindless rather than aims and intention. It nicely sidesteps the problem of emergence of sentience, which appears to be the only realistic option in our present understanding.

imo you've nailed it with your take on the role of the observer. Interesting you precede that discussion with

"...mathematical laws are not mindless but are instead infused with features of our cognitive framework."

This has me wondering if such mindfulness is essential for your discussion of the observer. In any case, I think a strong argument can be made for use of the geometric Clifford algebras of 3D space and 4D spacetime in attempts to formalize the mindfulness you envision.

I much like the FQXi search engine. Searching for any of the three terms 'geometric Clifford algebra' gives what appear to me to be useful links to other essays in this year's Forum Posts section. You might find helpful ideas there in terms of "...features of our cognitive framework."

Best regards,

Pete

Dear Dean,

I fully support your firm insistence on the importance of the mind-universe problem, and I appreciate your quotations. I think, my son Lev and clearly refuted the Wheeler's closed loop in our essay awarded at the previous fqxi contest. I would be grateful for your comments to our Moira and Eileithyia for Genesis.

All the best,

Alexey Burov.

Dear Dean,

Universe is an i-Sphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as 4 dimensional dual torus inside a 3-Sphere, which consists of Riemann 2-sphere as Soul as depicted in S=BM^2 diagram in the attached doc. Soul is the simplest of the complex manifolds with in the 3-sphere, Mind and Body constitute the remaining complexity. Soul, Mind and Body are in a toroidal flux in human beings, exactly at the center of the 3-sphere one can experience the unity of the trinity and that is the now moment we experience. As there are 4 dimensions required for a 3-sphere, the regular 3 dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time, it is obvious that the 2-sphere (Riemann sphere) of consciousness with in us is with out the time dimension and hence the saying "eternal soul". Poincare` conjecture implies that consciousness is homeomorphic (same or similar) in all beings manifested in all dimensions of the universe, as i have shown that Riemann sphere can serve as the fundamental unit of consciousness in There are no goals as such its all play.

PS: i thinks therefore we are VR(Virtual Reality), i "am" not GOD but i "is".

zero = i = infinity = sqrt ( e power (i * pi) )

Love,

i.Attachment #1: 12_zero__i__infinity.docx

Nice essay Rickles,

Wonderful sentences!..... "The brain is small. The universe is large. In what way, if any, is it, the observed, affected by man, the observer? Is the universe deprived of

all meaningful existence in the absence of mind?"

We get 5 different pictures of the Universe using our five senses viz, "Vision, Smell, Taste, Touch and by Hearing" . Probably our mind will mix all these 5 pictures into one complex picture of the Universe, What do you say ?

And here this Dynamic Universe Model answers many physics questions starting from Micro level, Solar system level, Galaxy level and to the Universe level............

..................... Hence at this point, I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay ALSO, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

This is an interesting read...you address the question by arguing that physical laws are not mindless. Rather, physical laws are part of our subjective and not objective reality.

You state that the goal of the scientist is to uncover the universe's invariant features, its laws. You also state that the goal of science is to predict the future and that is the goal of rats as well. Granted.

However, physical laws are by definition objective since many people agree with them, and so what you seemed to have done is simply redefine the word subjective to include objective notions about the physical world.

It would seem that redefining the words in the question does not address the core issue...the core issue of subjective versus objective realities. The observer of a source always perturbs the source just as you note.

The core issue dividing our subjective and objective realities is whether the observer can always know the causes of those source perturbations, i.e., the physical laws, not whether the perturbations exist. You do not seem to have addressed this core issue.

If an observer cannot actually know a physical cause that does exist, this means that there is choice without the possibility of knowing a cause for that choice. This differentiates the objective nature of the world where all effects have a knowable cause from our subjective experience where there is choice without cause just like quantum uncertainty means there are effects without knowable causes.

Professor Rickles,

Very nice essay with some provocative and interesting views. I hadn't seem QBism and found it close to previous essays of mine, equivalent to the 'wavefunction' not collapsing but being reborn' by each interaction.

However I have to suggest that from there it descends largely into utter nonsense, purely and demonstrable due to our incomplete understanding of nature. I show in my own essay how QMs predictions CAN be produced by classical mechanisms, and exactly as John Bell predicted, by identifying a momentum exchange in observer/detector interactions NOT accounted for in QM's formulation.

I didn't find your "mathematical laws are not mindless but are instead infused with features of our cognitive framework." shocking at all. If you like 'shocking' then do take a look (and try to disprove) at the simple reality exposed in my essay. (the first part predicts it'll be 'invisible' to most minds, as is most new physics, and shows why).

As one expert in the philosophy of science and QM I'd greatly value your response.

Well done and thank you for your own, confirming the limited 'front line' of our current state of understanding.

Best

Peter

Dear Professor Dean Rickles,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

I just finished reading your essay and found it interesting; however, I am of the opinion that you still overindulge yourself in the "beliefs" held by the scientific community (an issue I often refer to as a

religion" which upsets them to a rather unbelievable extent).

People seem to be incapable of comprehending what I say and I have hopes you might be able to understand what I am talking about. It might be beneficial for you to read part 3 of my Essay ignoring everything else.

Mindless mathematics is the supposed starting point of these essays.

Part 1 of my essay is no more than a comment that role and structure of language is the first issue to be understood.

Part 2 is no more than a comment that any communication (think language) can be transformed into collections of numbers. If you have any understanding of computers, you should be well aware of that fact.

Part 3 is no more than a definition of Understanding.

The rest of the essay is no more than a demonstration of how "mindless mathematics then yields some rather astounding facts. This is an issue I barely touch in my essay. The work can be extended a thousand fold easily.

Please take a look at part 3 and see if you are capable of comprehending my definition.

Thank you - R.D. Stafford

Dean Rickles

There is no subjectivity, but only objectivity! If we shrug off anthropocentrism--the way of looking from man's perspective.

The perspective that needs to adapted is physicalism by translating each word of dictionary into their "physical correlate".

For example I define mind as the physical process by which a response is decided.

An epistemological revolution is needed to acknowledge that, "Physics is behavioral science of matter". It is not Physics that give behavior to matter instead behavior of matter give Physics.

Matter has its own mind and language. Matter expresses and matter comprehends. How matter knows that its reaction is equal and opposite to an action?

We need a paradigm shift to answer the question of the Essay Contest.

Great essay. I am not sure I totally agree with this, but it certainly is something with which to reference developments in physics. It is sort of the ultimate bootstrap principle and it could ultimately prove to be the final principle of physics and cosmology.

When I was in high school I purchased the big "Gravitation" book of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. As a high school senior I struggled hard to read the book. Around that time I was perusing the local university library and found this book "Quantum Gravity," pulled it off the shelf and looked in it. I read the essay by Wheeler at the end on the Participatory Universe. I was utterly thunderstruck that anyone would write in a book of hard physics something of this nature. I remember this reading experience as bordering on mystical.

If you look in my essay you will see where at the end I talk about the role of Goedel's theorem and self-reference in the open world or universe (multiverse). This is one one cornerstone that Wheeler appeals to with his participatory universe.

I am not sure I will live long enough to know whether this weltenschauung will prove to be the ultimate final theory of physics. I think or suspect we might be trying to find the penultimate theory, or maybe the pre-penultimate theory. This will be around though haunting us so long as we are doing physics.

Cheers LC

Dear Dean,

Some historical refinements & judgment :

Eddington attempted to introduce so called " E - Algebra" based on unified Kantian intuition of space - and - time " ( having Kantian analogy in Hamilton's quaternion algebra as " a science of pure time "). Eddington's a - priorism is also connected with his principle : it is possible to calculate the exact values of all pure metaconstants summarizing timeless relations between the basic constants of Nature, by a priori mathematical deduction from synthetic a priori principles of some unified physics ( in Whittaker's terms ).

In other words, following Eddington's Kantianism there are mindless observer - independent mathematical laws. Constants by Eddington are observer - independent but at the same time they have transcendental idealistic existence ( as synthetic a priori judgments )in good agreement with Kant transcendental aesthetics,but not with popular solipsism ( multiverse ).

I showed in my essay " Kantian answers " that FQXi contest question is obviously Kantian and it has a generalized form as Kantian question - How synthetic a priori judgments are possible ?

Thank you for the good essay

Michael A. Popov

Hi Dean,

You wrote a fascinating essay. I've always been interested in Wheeler's idea of bootstrapping. Is it your idea that such bootstrapping requires human level consciousness and actual observation or can the interactions of entities at any level of consciousness play that role?

Please check out my own essay should you find the time:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2817

All the best,

Rick Searle

Dear Mr. Rickles

Perhaps the more you appreciate the importance of mathematics in science, if you have references from Njitn, Bošković, Plank ...

Regards,

Branko

Dean,

The universe is not fashioned in our own image but certainly our shadow eclipses the sun of understanding.

Good review of concepts that help us to understand what mindless laws and science are carved out of. "Subjective realism", "the tyranny of the engineer" and "tyranny of mathematiciam" are good monikers to explain and caution.

I see entropy as a major mindless law and encourage modern scientists to get out of the lab to field study the dynamics of dark matter, for example.

Hope you get a chance to check mine out.

Jim Hoover

Absolutely loved it, Dean Rickles!

Wheeler's "it from bit", Goedel, a self-bootstrapping universe... What more could I ask for in essay?! I feel like your essay took some thoughts that were rolling around in my head to the next level :)

I think a lot of physicists would benefit from listening to some of your "philosophical logic" (I hope that isn't an oxymoron :) Why divorce ourselves from our theories!? But do you really think it is random at the bottom, and not pseudo-random? Could statistics, probability, and QM just be tool that we use to analyze a deterministic universe? Also, what are your thoughts on Douglas Hofstadter's "Strange Loops"?

Please check out my "Digital Physics" film on iTunes, Amazon Prime, or Vimeo if you get the chance. I think it may be up your alley!

Jon