Brian,

It says I'm still logged in but we'll see.

I hope you can refer back to my original post, then my essay. I'd like your comments. A classical QM should be easily falsifiable!!

I've just put this in my posts to help as the sequence is to long for a simple scan to capture the 'meaning';

AS MOST STRUGGLE WITH THE CLASSICAL SEQUENCE (TO MUCH TO HOLD IN MIND ALL AT ONCE) A QUICK OUTLINE INTRO IS HERE;

1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM; with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

The numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 As the matching computer code & plot in Declan Traill's short essay. All is Bell compliant as he didn't falsify the trick with reversible green/red socks (the TWO pairs of states).

After deriving it in last years figs I only discovered the Poincare sphere already existed thanks to Ulla M during this contest. I hope that helps introduce the ontology.

Very best

Peter

Brian--

An extremely interesting and provocative approach. The first objection I can think of from a more conventional perspective is that meaning, in the sense discussed here, does not seem possible in the earliest stages of the universe. The two counterarguments to this that make sense to me are either some sort of overt hylozoism or else an approach similar to Whitehead's process philosophy. I'd be fascinated to know your reaction to this brief line of thought. Thanks.

(I also feel obligated to mention that I have an essay here, in case you have the time and inclination to look at it. Any feedback on it would be appreciated.)

--Greg

    Barad talks of the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. The early stages of the universe may be ones where the matter aspect dominates, in between 'before the big bang' and when conventional life starts to have an influence. A better way of thinking about it perhaps is to consider something like a locomotive. The driver has got some influence on what happens, e.g. putting on the brakes where appropriate, but mainly it's regular physics that is involved, e.g. the physics behind electric motors.

    Re process philosophy, processes play an important role, both in biosemiosis and in Barad's 'agential realism', but signs and semiosis are relevant to the question of how processes emerge.

    I'd incidentally recommend, if you have not done so yet, that you study the addendum to my essay, which you can see at https://philpapers.org/archive/JOSOTF.pdf, which takes a more physical perspective.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #225

    Dear Brian,

    Many thanks for your thought-provoking essay and my introduction to biosemiotics.* In return, there follows one of the just-mentioned thoughts: offered at the risk of my being scheduled as biosemiidiotic (if not wholly so).

    Seeking to understand (and give meaning to) your symbols, it seemed that you were in fact talking (somewhat in code) about me [well, certainly about some of my friends; but they can speak for themselves]. For, like them, I believe myself to be an element of the set X = {biological | spacetime}: renown for my agency, as in my doings, performances, actions; AKA getting things done.

    Further, in accord with your thesis, I like to think that I do now take (from p.1) "proper account of the phenomenon of meaning." For example: Having learnt to read at early age, I could give meaning to the symbols at the local bus-stop. It read: "BUS STOP. SIGNAL DRIVER." And though I only ever saw one driver per bus, yet I knew it was not a typo. For I also knew that "signal" had two meanings: and it could not be the common one, for it already said bus STOP. Thus did I see that they were reassuringly advertising the outstanding safety of each driver. [Only later did I learn, standing there, that the driver did not stop unless you waved (action); accompanied by great future insecurity (he might miss your action): whereas the one consistent message -- to my small mind -- lead to inaction by me, certain stopping by the bus, and an assured long-term security.]

    All of which brings me to this next (p.1): "Meaning fails to show up in the world of physics simply because the kind of situations that physicists prefer to investigate are ones where meaning has no significant influence on the outcome." Yes, indeed! Consider the famous case of Bell's theorem: the meaning one attaches to REALISM significantly influences ones' understanding of REALITY. For me, "true realism" proves to be consistent with locality; for others, "naive realism" leads to dilemmas about AAD and nonlocality.

    I could go on about theorising and scaffolding; to the edge of chaos; confusing readers; your [BJ] personal benefits (p.5). But I want to focus on this: "Historians will marvel at the way insistence by the mainstream that at a fundamental level particles are the only things that matter, banishing to the fringe those scientists who think otherwise, will be seen to have drastically interfered with the progress of science" (p.6).

    I AGREE: For while I take "existence" to be fundamental, it is "interference; AKA interaction" that provides the doings, performances, actions of our dynamic universe: and particles. Thus do I believe that introductions to biosemiotics should focus on personal/human analogies from set X re scaffolding to the edge of chaos; etc.

    * My only acquaintance with C. S. Peirce is that I called upon him to prove a point re the last word in my title: More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

    PS: Brian, to help promote your lovely essay, I'll put the above on my essay-site. Thus -- if/when you respond -- please post a note there so that I'm alerted.

    With my thanks again, and with my best regards; Gordon

      Mr. Josephson,

      I fully enjoyed the way you put things together in a clear picture and I think further words are useless.

      Rated accordingly.

      If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

      Respectfully,

      [linkfqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3130]Silviu[/link]

        Professor Josephson,

        Thank you for your (Feb 21) posting on dyadic and triadic aspects of your essay!

        I had expected your update and searched for it multiple times, but as many of us have discovered, finding new postings anytime except immediately after they have been posted can get... interesting? Oddly, it is not even possible to find a direct link to the second, non-anonymous version of your posting. That is a new one for me.

        I look forward to studying your references, though on this last day I'm a bit preoccupied with as many "mini-essays" to summarize unexpected ideas that emerged from essay conversations. The idea of partial cancellation generating scaffolding, in particular at the deep physics level, is on my mini-essay list. I'll put a link here if I can get to that one before end-of-day (there are 2 or 3 in queue before it, sorry).

        Again, thank you for the update on triads! And also again, my abject apologies for not finding it for almost a week (sigh...)

        Cheers,

        Terry

        Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

        Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

        4 days later

        Hello Prof. Josephson,

        Your essay is a very nice essay. I am really thrilled to see a Nobel laureate participating in the essay contest. I am a high school student and have been participating in this contest for 2 years. This year I submitted an essay on "Is mathematics Fundamental?" Can you gie me some insights on my essay. I have a dream of being a good physicist in future.

        Kind Regards

        Ajay Pokharel

        Post-materialistic science

        Post-materialistic science is an alternative to the 'post-quantum theory' being pushed here and elsewhere by one Jack Sarfatti, which I don't believe addresses the deeper issues in ways apparent in a number of essays here.

        Let's start from the idea that science advances on the basis of new concepts; for example Newton had to invent concepts such as inertia to develop his dynamics. These new concepts give rise to terminology and the possibility of characterising nature in such terms and the discovery of new laws of nature. Semiotics, biosemotics, and related ideas such as semiotic scaffolding and the semiosphere involve such concepts. An everyday case where such ideas are relevant is that of a language: one is able to characterise a given language in detail, and observe it at work. These new insights are associated with new regularities. These are also found in the studies of Barad, in particular the insight that there are agencies that 'intra-act' to create new phenomena.

        Where does this leave regular physics with its precise laws? There seems to be a connection in that such laws may be emergent as a result of semiotic mechanisms. Maths as such may not be able to explain why the semiotic processes work: this may be additional physics, implying a new form of order. It may for example be necessasry to recognise that things as ideas, which may have their own physics in a more mental realm, have an objective reality. The key point is that adding concepts such as semiotic scaffolding and agential realism to one's mental toolkit can open up important new avenues of exploration.

          Hello dear Professor Josephson,

          Congratulations for your essays.I don't know well the biosemiotic ,it seems very relevant.The semiosphere what is it ? it seems relevant.I work about my theory of spherisation with quant and cosm sphères in the universal sphere.I have found this theory is ranking a little of all since the age of 17 , animals, vegetals, particles, brains ...and I have seen this universal link in seeing that brains also were in this logic.The evolution is important , I was fascinated by H ...CNO.....the primordial soap with CH4 H2O NH3 NHCN H2C2....and with time and informations we have this evolution and complexification.I find your works very interestin,g ,I d like to know more about this biosemiotic mechanic. Biology and brains are resulsts of evolution and it is so complex when we see the numbers of particles encoded since this hypothetical Big Bang.Semiosphere could you tell me more in a general point of vue please.

          Best Regards

          6 days later

          1. Despite their popularity, there is no substance to theories of "emergence" from complexity/ dynamical systems.

          You cannot logically claim that something could "emerge" because of "their ability to fill a gap" [page 4] or because "natural selection favours it" [page 5].

          Also, there is nothing backing up the supposition that complexity/ dynamical systems theory might be used to model "emergence": "Science does however possess tools that should prove adequate to taking these ideas further, for example computer modelling (which served to disclose the existence of the previously unsuspected phenomena of chaos and the edge of chaos), dynamical systems theory, and studies involving complexity" [page 5].

          Because, after all this time, we know enough to say categorically that nothing remotely resembling life comes out of, "emerges" from, deterministic mathematical or algorithmic systems, no matter how complex these systems are, and no matter how long you run them for. For example, nothing resembling life comes out of cellular automata (an algorithmic system) or out of a Mandelbrot set representation (a combination mathematical and algorithmic system), except in the subjective imagination of some people.

          What seemingly "emerges" is patterns. But there is no ability to precisely define what are these "patterns" that supposedly emerge, or how a system itself would know about such unstable system-wide "patterns" anyway. In any case, a system is driven by its rules (e.g. fundamental "laws of nature"), not by any system-wide patterns determined by its rules. New rules do not "emerge" out of a system. You have to, in effect, add new rules to get a changed behaviour in the system.

          The elephant in the room is: Where do algorithmic and/or mathematical rules come from? Clearly, new rules cannot just "emerge" out of an existing system, but 1) have these rules always been there, existing Platonically, since the beginning of the universe? or 2) do we live in creative universe where the elements of the system literally create their own rules? For too long, physics has gotten away with not attempting to explain the source of what they represent as mathematical rules/ relationships (e.g. fundamental "laws of nature"); but physics can no longer get away with it when it comes to algorithmic rules.

          2. In contrast to the conjecture about "emergence", there is substance to quantum mechanics.

          What is puzzling to some people, the "weird" aspects of quantum mechanics, are exactly the type of non-mathematical, non-algorithmic aspects of reality necessary for complex life to bootstrap itself i.e.: 1) the "knowledge"/perception aspect seemingly possessed by a particle; 2) the "free will"/creative aspect seemingly possessed by a particle; and 3) the "coherence" group behaviour of particles.

          Dear Lorraine,

          It is hard to know where to begin to answer your many points! Let me begin with the remark that physics knows and understands many instances of emergence, e.g. crystallisation, which can be related to the concept of broken symmetry. You say "we know enough to say categorically that nothing remotely resembling life comes out of, "emerges" from, cellular automata (an algorithmic system) or out of a Mandelbrot set representation (a combination mathematical and algorithmic system). That may be, but I envisage a different kind of picture, involving e.g. concepts such as nonlinearity, and fractality, rendering the kind of failures you refer to irrelevant. My picture is more true to the physics than the kinds of models you cite.

          Next, while you may find QM the 'bee's knees' as regards its capacity to explain the phenomena of nature, others disagree.聽

          Finally, you make many statements that seem to be more personal credos than things you have proofs for so I won't discuss these in detail.聽

          Dear Brian,

          Re crystallisation:

          Except in the eye of the beholder, has anything mysterious "emerged" with crystallisation, temperature, or weather? If a system is 100% mechanistic, where all outcomes are 100% determined by constraints, the environment and "laws of nature", then no outcome is more emergent or mysterious than any other outcome.

          But if quantum symmetry breaking is involved, then new information has in effect been input to the system. To paraphrase Wheeler: new information is created in quantum phenomena; this new information is not a deterministic consequence of the above-described mechanisms. I note you quote Wheeler in your essay, but a more telling quote of Wheeler's is: "Each elementary quantum phenomenon is an elementary act of 'fact creation'" [1]. If new information has been in effect non-mechanistically input to the system, then you cannot claim that the crystallisation outcome has somehow mysteriously "emerged" from a deterministic system.

          Re "I envisage a different kind of picture, involving e.g. concepts such as nonlinearity, and fractality, rendering the kind of failures you refer to irrelevant":

          The "kind of failures" I refer to are not irrelevant. Nonlinear systems and fractals are fully deterministic systems where some outcomes or behaviours might appear to "emerge", but in fact no outcome is more emergent or mysterious than any other outcome.

          1. Quoted in QBism: Quantum Theory as a Hero's Handbook, by Christopher A. Fuchs and Blake C. Stacey, https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07308v2 .

          "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit...Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels", [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ].

          Brian, by "emergence" you seem to mean something that is 100% reducible to the lower levels (or do you?), whereas I mean something that is irreducible to the lower levels. Quantum symmetry breaking in crystallisation is an example of something that is irreducible to lower levels, although the symmetry breaking itself has nothing to do with complexity/ dynamical systems. I'm claiming that the only way anything can "emerge" is via the input of new information to the system (this is only found to occur in quantum processes), whereas you seem to be claiming that something new can emerge from 100% deterministic processes.

          Wikipedia, which you quote, is hardly the last word on any topic. More authoritative I suggest is the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, which has this article on the subject: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/, and observes that there is more than one view on such matters. One point, which your comments fail to take into account, is that phenomena related to laws of nature are a function of the specifics of a given situation, as well as the underlying laws. In other words, certain situations are special. This includes life, see e.g. https://arxiv.org/html/1110.1768.

          Brian, I have printed your arxiv paper: I hope to read it some time today. But I have previously read the Stanford article. Re "certain situations are special": there is absolutely no way of identifying "special situations" in a deterministic universe, unless you add a meta-level to the universe which has special algorithmic criteria about the lower level. In other words, you have to add new equations and algorithms to the system in order to identify "special situations". To put it another way, you need to have a theory about what equations (laws) and algorithms are, and how they are "created".

          I have mentioned "the specifics of a given situation" in my reply on 15 March 2018 @ 14:17 GMT: "where all outcomes are 100% determined by constraints, the environment and "laws of nature"". The specifics of a situation includes the very import issue of what is the reality that underlies (what physics represents as) numbers. Despite the crucial importance of numbers, physics has no theory about what numbers might be.