A fundamental Universe by Heinrich Päs

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

Dear Heinrich Päs

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

"Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Heinrich,

We are all searching for the ultimate fundamental universe, but our discoveries tell us again and again that the fundamental evolves and continually remains beyond our reach. You mention a number of the theories and the wonders of our universe: from a Beethoven symphony to Everett's multiverse concept. The LHC will take us to the cusp of the quantum state of the universe. The most sensitive LIGO will take us back to the big bang. But with all of this, quantum biologists see quantum coherence in warm, wet, turbulent environments thru the simple process of photosynthesis. Our Jupiter probe redefines our knowledge of a huge gaseous planet. These are some of the thing I see in my essay. Hope you can check it out.

Jim Hoover

Respected Prof Heinrich Päs

Nice understanding about the universe..... understood as an entangled quantum object. This seemingly tautological statement is explained in detail, and some related ideas inspired by this view which could guide the future ............

By the way have a look at my essay sir...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....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

Dear Heinrich Päs,

I enjoyed your essay, since it tries to squeeze out as much information as possible out of the assumption that there is a global wave function governing all of reality (‚the universe').

I want to point you to the fact that the many-worlds-interpretation, means the assumption of a psi-ontic global wave function is a logical trickster in the following sense.

The MWI allows one to use the principle of non-contradiction together with its assumed 'complement' - the principle of contradiction.

It does so by assigning a probabilistic as well as a strictly deterministic ontology to one and the same events.

Consider for example me, obsvering a particle's spin up in a measurement. In a branched universe another individual (although totally identical with me - but nonetheless *another* individual) observes spin down for 'the same' particle.

Since such a branching, such a splitting is thought of as happening deterministically, the question remains why the individual should see the 'complementary' result of my measurement and not vice versa. One can only deny this dichotomy by assuming that 'spin up' and 'spin down' are only observer-relative due to decoherence. But one cannot deny that nature must assign a certain well-defined value in my universe.

Since I am distinct from the other individual for which nature has assigned another value (the complementary value for example), I can't even in the bird's view answer the question why it should be me and not the other individual that observes the measurement value I observe.

Since the other individual is thought of as identical with me at the moment the measurement outcome is fixed - but only as far as its thoughts and its body is concerned, but *not* in the sense that it has the exact same location within the wave function - the other individual will exactly conclude what I conclude: there is no cause in nature (at least not within a global wave function alone!) that could assign the measurement outcome that I observed. Hence there is also no cause in nature that the other individual should observe its 'complementary' measurement outcome.

If there is no cause in nature that assigns a specific event in my world or in the world of the other individual, the global wave function cannot be psi-ontic or must have some additional features.

What the MWI does here is that it mimicks a kind of 'coincidentia oppositorum', al melting of mutually exclusive concepts. It mimicks the coincidentia oppositorum of a probabilistic and a strictly deterministic version of natural behaviour for the same event. It can do so, because from a frog's view, it seems that both individuals in both branches are one and the same - with just a tiny difference in their environment (and finally in their brains where the measurement results are realized!).

Since everything is identical, even the particle before the measurement, this kind of coincidencia opppositorum seems like the mystical enlightenment of the real fundament of all there is. The price to pay is that we have married two mutually exclusive concepts by the very means we started from: namely by the superposition principle. This principle intertwines the law of non-contradiction with its 'complement', the principle of deductive explosion.

It may well be that nature is regularily confronted (before an arbitrary measurement takes place) with a multitude of possibilities that the principle of explosion represents, but the MWI does not resolve the presence of the principle of explosion. Moreover, the MWI does shift the problem of this principle from superpositions to branching in a deterministically manner, but cannot get rid of the probabilistic part, since within the formalism of quantum mechanics, there is nothing that could assign the well-defined measurement value that I will see when I make my next measurement. In this sense, the outcome must remain 'random', albeit this randomness is surely restricted by the probabilistic part of the formalism.

In conclusion, no individual in any part of the multitude of different branches within the MWI can predict the next outcome of a probabilistic quantum measurement. Since this seems to be true for me, I conclude that the MWI only mimicks a consistent interpretation. It does so to the price of eliminating an observer-independent world by claiming that it is perfectly observer-independent. Stated differently: the frog's and the bird's view cannot be complementary, since logically they have to be understood as mutually exclusive. They only can be made complementary by adding the principle of explosion.

One now may argue that the principle of explosion wasn't added at all, since it is a natural element of the formalism, means the superposition principle. This may be true, but does not eliminate the fact that the principle of explosion is present in the MWI together with the law of non-contradiction. The latter has is expression in the branching and its implication that branched universes cannot anymore communicate or causally interact with each other (unless one doesn't introduce a special kind of recoherence). The former is a consequence of the formalism itself, namely the superposition principle.

In summary, what the bird's view perceives as a kind of 'coincidencia oppositorum' is true, but it is the interwining of the principle of explosion with the principle of non-contradiction. Therefore it is no wonder that the MWI can 'deduce' all kinds of things for different branches - as long as the probability for these things to occur is not exactly zero. Or stated otherwise, as long as these things are not impossible in-principle. Since the main principle in this consideration is the formalism of quantum mechanics, the MWI and its multitude of worlds is a direct consequence of the principle of explosion.

But there is one thing the principle of explosion cannot handle. This is the fact that there are at all observers that can facilitate different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Since the formalism of quantum mechanics does not show the slightest signs that it should enable some self-reflection (in the form of observers), this formalism seems for me to not capture the universe as a whole (unless one interprets the timeless wave function as being fundamentally conscious and able to split this consciousness in some mysterious manner by its own branching).

Don't bother about my long comment, I like to make my thoughts as tracable as possible for the sake of exchange of viewpoints and arguments.

Hope the formatting problem of the fqxi-editor is now solved... :-)

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Heinrich,

there is much I like and agree with about your essay. The notion of the 'fundamental universe' is close to my own thoughts---I think of it as the 'quagmire', after a quotation from Schrödinger:

"Nearly every result [a quantum physicist] pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that... happening--with usually a great many alternatives. The idea that they be not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him, just impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish."

This quagmire can be split into 'observer' and 'environment' in many different ways, all of which give rise to a different set of 'relative facts' (this term, I think, I stole from Jeff Barrett)---relative to one observer, the electron spin is up, relative to another, it's down, and so on.

But let me for the moment be contrarian and try to challenge your rejection of strong emergence. For this, suppose we have a universe with three kinds of particles---A, B, and C---complete with laws governing their behavior. This constitutes the complete set of 'fundamental facts' about this universe: any sort of god needs only fix those, and the rest must follow.

Now, we might add a fourth, D kind of particle: this certainly changes nothing, other than more fundamental, irreducible facts need to be added. But what if this particle, say, is a particular composite of A, B, and C-particles? Thus, A-particles might behave one way when isolated, but another way when in a certain conjunction with B- and C-particles; moreover, that they behave this way is not implied by the fundamental facts pertaining to those particles. It's an additional fundamental fact, albeit not on the same level as the facts about A, B, and C-particles.

To me, this doesn't seem any more controversial than, say, adding charge to a massive ball, and having it move in an electromagnetic field: without the charge, gravity alone suffices to determine its motion, but with charge, we have to take electromagnetism into consideration, too. A ball that would have been falling under the influence of gravity alone might be held in suspension by a clever dynamic arrangement of electromagnetic fields.

Similarly, a conglomerate of A, B, and C-particles (i.e. a D-particle) might move according to the rules for A, B, and C-particles, but might also move in accordance with additional rules that obtain for D-particles.

The real problem is, I think, that all of the fundamental facts about the various kinds of particles are ultimately not further justifiable. They're Archimedean points, incapable of being reduced to more fundamental facts (since if they could be, they'd hardly be fundamental). Facts of such a kind on higher levels do not themselves seem any more suspect to me---the problem is really with their irreducible nature, not with the level they're on. It's just that we're more comfortable with such foundations being all the way at the bottom.

Dear Heinrich,

Your essay is interesting. One hypothesis could also be that the material carrier is an information carrier it itself?

Kind regards,

Christophe

Heinrich,

I feel every concept contributes to an understanding of "fundamental," so I am reviewing my own sketchy evaluations to help my understanding and see if I have rated them. I find that I did not rate yours and will remedy that today. Hope you get a chance to check out mine.

Jim