A fundamental Universe by Heinrich Päs

Having read your essay where you refer to the universe as an entangled object, what do you make of how fundamental say Quantum Entanglement is ?

Thanks for bringing this educated view point to the forum!

Andrew

P.S. I am inviting you to view, and comment on my essay put up in December 21st

Thanks again for your insights!!!

I mean quantum entanglement as in the sense of the EPR experiment !!

Just put this in for clarification

Dear Heinrich Pas,

An enjoyable essay. You note that the truly unique factor of our language is "its ability to transmit information about things that do not exist at all... Thus "any large-scale human cooperation - whether a modern state, a media evil church, and ancient city, or an archaic tribe - is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective imagination."

But, as you say, "not all realities are equally fundamental."

You note that in the space-time concept of relativity observers moving with different speeds will measure different times in space, while the space-time distance ds is not directly observable. My essay reviews the history of relativity in a way that I hope you find interesting. I would appreciate any comments.

With regard to "information about things that do not exist at all", you note, for example, Heisenberg's creation of isospin to 'describe' proton and neutron. If one grants that protons and neutrons are in some fundamental sense 'real', this represents one of the first (of many) instances in which a mathematical projection is used to replace reality. It isn't even a particularly clean projection, as isospin symmetry assumes equal mass, and even this is not true. This projection-based approach continues to SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) with the same problem. SU(3) assumes 'equal mass' but it is applied to problems where masses differ by two orders of magnitude.

Thus 'symmetry' (a.k.a. group theory) offers a powerful tool, but I believe ALL actual instances of 'symmetry' are approximate. In this way Heisenberg's projected Q-bit evolved to Bell's projected Q-bit which is the basis of "entanglement", which you seem to consider fundamental.

However I do agree that information is immaterial and relies on a material carrier and depends on the perspective of the observer. That is, only energy travels through space. If that energy crosses a threshold and changes a system's configuration, the system becomes "in"-formed and the informed structure represents the record of 'information', assuming a codebook or perspective is able to interpret it.

Thank you for a very well-written, interesting perspective on 'what is fundamental?'. I hope you find my essay interesting.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

An excellent and enjoyable essay!

Dear Heinrich P.

"Fundamental Reality = Universe without Perspective?" HP. The universe without perspective I suppose is a pre-linguistic universe, that is, the universe as it Really, Objectively and in-and-of-itself is. But that means that nothing whatsoever can be said about the Objective universe, which in turn means that it doesn't exist or, rather, that it is nothing (or everything if you prefer). My question then: Who would be the bearer of the truth of a universe without perspective? Isn't Objectivity self-defeating or at least the mere dressing in tales of shut-up-and-calculate 'truths'?

Heinrich L.

Dear Professor Heinrich Päs,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Your paper was interesting to read. The idea of reality as the world plus perspective or what we might call an observation from a frame is to carry the idea of frame and gauge freedom/independence to matters such as quantum interpretations.

That information needs a material conveyance would seem to imply the Higgs mechanism is necessary for information mechanics to make sense. In a massless world all particles move on null geodesics. They can still contain information, just as a photon can carry information. If these particles interact with each other according to the roots of a Lie algebra that raise and lower states this is a process whereby qubits are transferred. If we let the Higgs field interact, such as the Goldstone bosons absorbed by W^{+/-} and Z these particles convert the degree of freedom of the scalar bosons into an m = 0 spin state or equivalently a longitudinal mode. This restriction on symmetry provides information with more of a conveyance, which is matter.

LC

Dear Heinrich,

thank you, yours is really an interesting essay, very enjoyable, I wish you all the best with the contest. I think that:

>Reality = Universe Perspective and that Fundamental Reality = Universe without Perspective

is a very good point, and I agree that it is close to the philosophies that you quoted in the end of the paper. It's close also to Nagarjuna and to the absolute relativism which I propose in my essay. "Fundamental Reality = Universe without Perspective" sounds like the idea that many mystic thinkers pointed out, even if in an unscientific frame.

You write also that

> On the one hand information itself is immaterial - people have been killed by rocks but nobody ever has been killed by a Beethoven symphony

...not if people are information as well ;)

All the best, Francesco D'Isa

Dear Heinrich,

I enjoyed reading your essay! You made an excellent case for decoherence and many worlds/many minds, and how they endorse your proposal that the universe as a whole is what is fundamental. This provides a fresh perspective on unification. Other ideas that I found remarkable in your essay are the comparison between social construct and biological organisms (I think that this can be extended in some measure also to the emergent classical world); the interplay between the higher and lower levels (a theme that I discussed in my previous essay, from a different perspective); the characterization of the degree of how fundamental is a reality by the observer-independence; and especially this remark "the fundamental Universe is a single entity which only looks like many things as perceived through the lens of decoherence". Maybe the fundamental Universe is simply a quantum state with zero information, the most "spherical" density matrix, yet myriads of worlds of immense complexity exist inside it, the only evidence for their existence being their own testimony to themselves. Since we still have the problem of experimentally proving the MWI (to complement its explanatory power), mainly because the worlds are isolated and unobservable from the outside, I am wondering how this can be done. I remember from our discussion in Castiglioncello that you mentioned your proposal to test MWI. I think it's a great idea which deserves more attention, and it is perfect for this. BTW, here's a short story that I hoped you'll enjoy at your leisure. Congratulations for your essay, and success!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica, Indra's net

Dear Professor Heinrich Päs, your essay is full of thoughts that can influence the New Cartesian physics claiming to be the theory of everything. In the foundation of this physics lies the fundamental identity of space and matter of Descartes. Space is matter, and matter is space. And now I use your words and say: space is a source of information and its guide. You may be interested in my essay, in which, among other things, I showed the connection between the Lorentz factor and the probability density of quantum states.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Prof. Päs,

thank you for sharing this interesting and well written essay.

Your work seems to suggest, however, that decoherence is the best way to get rid of all the fundamental problems of quantum mechanics, and this is based on Occam's razor. I think that this is a bit simplistic, and it does not really reflect the present situation of the still heated debate on foundations of quantum physics.

I really liked your discussion on emergence and reductionsm, though (you find in my essay similar thoughts).

All good wishes,

FLavio Del Santoa

I keep hoping to read new notions, new terminology, in the various essays.

This is a well written piece, names all the traditional research and interpretations, but I don't see any new ground covered. Appreciate the effort, none the less.

Hello Heinrich,

A well-written essay.I have rated a good score because of your logic. You think that quantum universe is fundamental through entanglement and that's a good belief as you have presented logic in your essay.

I was confused in a part where you quote: Reality=Universe perception.

Here, do you mean that reality is what we view or what we believe? What I believe is reality is what we deduce from mathematics and pattern as discussed in my essay.

I wish you good luck in the competition.

Kind Regards

Ajay Pokharel