Essay Abstract

The foundations of contemporary physics are based upon the "naïve reality" assumption that an objective physical world exists independently of the observer's subjective experience. Yet it is clear that subjective experience is a critical aspect of reality and its presence must be included if we hope to properly account for the observer's existence. Accommodating the observer requires abandoning the "naïve reality" assumption. A careful examination of what we do to see what we see shows that the processing steps required to explain our obvious first person experience involve a flow of action between our sensations and our memory which holds our model of whatever we believe explains those sensations. By applying a reductionist methodology to our first person view of matter, I will show that we do not objectively identify atoms or elementary particles, but rather that observers are a process that produces conceptual particles as theoretical interpretations of their subjective experiences. This suggests a tangible processing connection exists between the subjective and objective aspects of reality. By examining the architecture of quantum theory I will demonstrate that a general flow of action between the outside first person view of matter and the conceptual inside of matter is already codified in quantum physics. This examination shows that quantum theory is a linear approximation of a more comprehensive theory that treats reality as a flow of activity which processes observable experiences into theoretical models of their causes and back again. By acknowledging a ubiquitous flow of action between an objective physical world and an observer's subjective experience, the foundations of physics are expanded. Elementary particles are replaced with elementary events happening in observers, events are implemented by a flow of physical action through sequential subjective and objective processing phases, and all systems are at least primitive observers.

Author Bio

Dr. Baer received his Ph.D. in Physics from the UC Berkeley and held a research professor position at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey California. He developed programs for unmanned aerial vehicle vision systems mimicking cognitive brain functions, which has lead to publications exploring the physics of consciousness. He has written peer reviewed articles in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and is currently writing a treatise on "Cognitive Action Theory" for Routledge Press that centers on an event oriented extension of quantum theory which fully integrates subjective and objective experiences for macroscopic phenomena.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Wolfgang Baer,

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite complex pretentious information ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Dear Dr. Baer,

thank you for this essay that I found interesting. The matter is obviously not new (since the first consistent formulations of QM in 1925-26 people have started wondering about this). However, modern interpretations of quantum mechanics (Rovelli's relational interpretatio, Fuchs' Qbism, information-based interpretations) definitely see the role of the observer as a central and indispensible one in physics.

Although I do not expound my ideas concerning this, you migh surely find some connections with my essay. I start from a different perspective, but immediately face the problem of "naive realism", that I dismiss as a too strict assumption.

Good luck, I rate you very high!

All the best,

Flavio

Dear Wolfgang,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Dr. Baer,

Thanks for your comments on my essay. You have obviously given much thought to questions about fundamentality, emergence, and consciousness.

In reading your essay, I find that it contains a number of points worthy of comment, but I will ask a question about the mental domain and the physical domain as the interior and exterior of matter, respectively. You discuss this particularly on pages 5 and 6. Would you say that that we know the interior (the mental domain) directly and perhaps with certainty, while we have to infer the exterior (the physical domain)? I am not fully clear about this.

In any event, you have some good ideas for unifying our view of the world.

Laurence Hitterdale

Dear Wolfgang,

Since you injected the Magic Theater into FQXi, I'll use it as an occasion to answer a little more metaphorically than usual. Harry Haller was warned against "putting too high a value on time. ... It is the 'eternity at the back of time' that is the kingdom of truth. The magic theater; the world of pictures, not realities."

It's possible that the "fundamental shift in our world view" due to quantum mechanics is a world of pictures, not realities.

Like Harry, "all the hundred thousand pieces of life's game are in my pocket." Physicists, like Harry, can "meditatively with an artistic skill, make up a new game of the same pieces with quite other groupings." "In this fashion the clever architect built up one game after another out of the figures..." I believe this can be so only if a primordial field exists, all physical reality a continuum of energy/mass where self-interacting physical reality can take all of the stable forms we know, as well as support energy transformations from place to place and time to time. Never does this self interacting underlying nature change, but the pictures and events "attain an endless multiplicity of moves in the game of life."

If this is so, the field is gravity, and the emergent statistical tool of quantum mechanics draws pictures to describe highly contrived events or experiments. It pretends to describe non-contrived events, such as the cat, but this too shall pass.

Quantum pictures can "emerge" from the correct understanding of gravito-electro-magnetism, but the whole cannot "emerge" from quantum pictures. As you note of a "typical quantum experiment examining a Bell inequality... A mental jump is made. He imagines photons radiating into his equipment... However he has never seen a photon, or for that matter light itself."

Sometimes one has to step back and look at it.

Congratulations on a wonderful essay and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin:

    I've been interested into properly including the observer into physics since my PhD THesis at UC Berkeley and if one steps outside of physics it decomes a demonstrable fact that that what we directly experience - such as these letters in front of your nose - is a personal mental display produced as the product of external sensory interactions, whose purpose is to display survival information and define control leavers for us to manage our sensation. The 3D display we are used to is probably characteristics of predator mammals and quite different for insects, fish. I believe the ter Magic Theater, 3d eye, visual ego, etc. are alternative names for this display.

    Such a display is in the processing path of all observer/actor systems independent of the detailed content. Thus the existence of the processing path is more fundamental than what we see and the physics of the processing paths is more fundamental than the classic physics built to explain what we see.

    Einstein was a realist and his Rail car thought experiment was conceived in in a single fundamental background space which imposes characteristics on moving systems you point out in your essay. That background space was Einstein's own imagination and he systematically dismissed it as being non physical, leaving observers with coordinate frames defining their own time. Which as you point out is incorrect.

    But he also also assumed the observers in his thought experiment were real not simply appearances in his own space. If he had kept his own imagination and given each of his observers their own imagination he would have come up with a multiverse of interacting process loops each of which runs at their own tims. That is the world view I am attempting to develop.

    Your paper does much to dispel much of Einsteins unassailable aura. I hope you win, I'm sure my ideas have no chance.

    best wishes

    Wolfgang

    8 days later

    Dear Professor Wolfgang Baer

    Very Important words... "By applying a reductionist methodology to our first person view of matter, I will show that we do not objectively identify atoms or elementary particles, but rather that observers are a process that produces conceptual particles as theoretical interpretations of their subjective experiences. This suggests a tangible processing connection exists between the subjective and objective aspects of reality" Dear Prof Wolfgang Baer

    .............It is very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

    Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

    -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 GR on any condition

    -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

    -No many mini Bigbangs

    -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

    -No Dark energy

    -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

    -No Multi-verses

    Here:

    -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

    -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

    -All bodies dynamically moving

    -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

    -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

    -Single Universe no baby universes

    -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

    -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

    -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

    -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

    -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

    -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

    -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

    -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

    - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

    I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

    Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

    In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

    I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

    Best

    =snp

    Prof Wolfgang Baer

    Thank you for reading my essay....

    Probably there are slight confusions, here the photons are moving grazingly near the mass. There will be one relative velocity between photon ray and mass. It will be irrespective of coming near the mass or going away from mass.....

    I said, this phenomenon can be observed on a solar eclipse day..... not exactly ... " during a solar eclipse the photon changes its frequency"

    Best

    =snp

    7 days later

    Wolfgang,

    In your essay you go after the "really big picture" and make it look easy. And you also do this as part of your company Nascent Systems. Wow!

    Your response to Edwin was so concise I will repeat it here: "Thus the existence of the processing path is more fundamental than what we see and the physics of the processing paths is more fundamental than the classic physics built to explain what we see."

    Yes, without question!

    Of course there are Questions:)

    1. Do you see your model as self referencing?

    2. I assume there will be "oscillations" in your model. Do you see this? Any insights about this?

    Do visit my essay, it is possible we may be working together in the future.

    Thanks for your most profound and ambitious essay.

    Don Limuti

    There are two levels of models. The model of the processing paths which can only be "seen" as a symbol that references our bigger self doing the processing, and the model within that bigger process that is intended to represent the reality with which the bigger self interacts. So I would like to say self regenerating rather than self referencing

    My model assumes activities, forms of action, processes are fundamental when these activities are small enough so they are reversible and do not destroy the medium (Hilbert space)then we get the quantum approximation, When such activities become larger they include the construction and destruction of the Hilbert space. In the Lab this means including the experimenter and his construction and interpretation of his experiment. This level of activity applied to the human experience would correspond to the observation of moving objects which do not destroy the space in which they are observed and the destruction of the space itself.

    An essay by Chandra Roychoudhuri, postulates a tension field that may be a candidate for the underlying space but it is not well developed. I'll look at your paper and perhps we can work together

    Wolf

    Hi Wolf,

    What a beautiful essay. The difference between Plato's view and Aristotle's is nicely worked out. Although I personally feel, that Plato's hidden reality of ideal geometrical figures corresponds more to a hidden variable approach to physics. I belief - and I think that matches also your model - that the observer has a more active role, where the math is brought in by his interaction with the objects to be measured.

    I also agree with your short presentation of the positivist thinking. Although I think the separation between an observational language and the theoretical language is wrong. The observational language depends on the theories, that underlie the physics of the measurement/observation. Mostly this corresponds to classical physics, because our bodies with our coarse grained perception of the world we live in, where classical physics is approximately true. Also our internal representation of the world depends on our environmental conditions, which are best described by classical physics. Our bodies have been accustomed to this environment during evolution. But these representation are also only accurate as long we live in such a classical world.

    And I like your action cycle, although I do not belief, it is necessary to explain QM (see below), but maybe for the updating rule of probabilities and to explain the the relation between internal representation and the external world.

    My own take in the interpretation of QM I think is similar to yours in spirit, but different in how it is worked out - also mathematically. I take the lesson we should learn from QM seriously, that properties of 'things' depend on the measurement and are not something, that belong to the 'things' alone. The experimental setup is described by the tensorproduct of object O, measurement system M and the environment E. But contrary to the decoherence interpretation, I assume that the environment must be in a specific symmetric state, such that evolution of the system O and M can be described by a unitary evolution. This is a condition for a successful measurement/definition of the relative quantities. Now the measurement cannot 'see' the phases of the object relative to its state. This leads to a reduction of the density matrix (by averaging out the non observable phases). This is not a physical process, but just expresses, what information is available to the measurement system. The evolution of the reduced density matrix in my (discrete) model is completely deterministic. This relative view is objective and immune against Wigner's friend type of intervention, because if Wigner wants to measure the averaged out phases, the process within the object measurement system would not be unitary anymore.

    Sorry for the long comment and exposition of my own view. I really hope you find the time to critically review my essay called The quantum sheep - In defence of a positivist view on physics, where between other discussions I present this measurement model.

    Best regards,

    Luca

    Luca:

    I just sent a long reply but get an error so I'll make it brief

    I'm not a fan of Platos ideals instead believe the prisoners write their oen theories on books in front of them based on the evidence they do see

    There must be some distinction between what we directly experience and how we explain those experiences. We see objects and thing there is mass. No one has ever experienced mass it is a theoretical inference

    Will check out your paper seem we have alot in common

    Wolf

    6 days later

    Wolf,

    Nice job, interesting, well argued, and I agree your conclusions. I analysed pre & post lens states (scored 7th) here fqXi 2012, Much Ado About Nothing. & 2013 finding important implications which agree & extend yours.

    I like your QM analysis but suggest it's incomplete; Consider; Send A,B states with parallel polar axes, so A= N(S) B= S(N). Equip A.B with polariser electrons flipped by a dial. Think 'momentum transfer'; They find 'opposite'. Now B turns his dial 180o & they find 'same'. Non-loclity is not needed! As surface momenta (at all radii) is non-linear by Cos latitude, and spheres have 3 spin axes.... praps read my essay!

    Your Architecture kinda still stands but may stand refurbishment. Copenhagen would also needs a bit of redevelopment!

    Top job on the scoring criteria anyway. Hope you get to read mine & can follow the mechanism, (also see Declan Traill's for matching code & CHSH >2 plots).

    very best

    Peter

    Dear Wolfgang

    If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

    A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

    Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

    My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

    Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

    For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

    My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

    By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

    To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

    Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

    Kind regards

    Steven Andresen

    Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin