Without any context or reference, attribute such as orientation, direction of motion, even speed of motion are not applicable. Only when' in relation to this (or that) is applied can the relation of both beable and reference/apparatus/observer give a determination that in this (or that) context beable x has attribute (state) A. Attribute not intrinsic property. It doesn't mean the unmeasured is without orientation, direction and speed of motion relative to objects in its environment but the context has not been determined by the experimenter. The 'in relation to this' is not known. Orientation of the beables may be the source of randomness. As for location at one time (not a probability distribution or over time characterization), there has to be location relative to the environment even if unknown. Detection provides the 'in relation to this' context.

In physics, there are NO relationships between THINGS. This is an important distinction. (Law of nature) relationships only ever exist between seemingly natural categories of information like particle mass, particle relative position, "how fast it is moving" [1] and "how it is spinning" [1]. So, this purportedly existing relationship does not actually exist: "the relation of both beable and reference/apparatus/observer". Similarly, there is no such thing as "motion relative to objects" or "location relative to the environment".

And contrary to what you say, "attribute[s] such as orientation, direction of motion, even speed of motion" are ALWAYS "applicable". These seemingly natural categories of information, and their lawful relationships to other such categories, continue to apply in the universe no matter what the "context or reference" of an observer. Maybe you are trying to say something about (what we represent as) the NUMBER values that apply to the natural categories?

But seemingly in the quantum microrealm, natural categories (e.g. relative particle position) can sometimes have NO numbers applying to them: i.e. there is no information available to an observer, there is nothing for an observer to detect.

1. Thermo-Demonics by M. Mitchell Waldrop, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/234

Lorraine, you wrote "In physics, there are NO relationships between THINGS", perhaps that is where the problem lies.I agree that properties are considered in physics and not in general the beable thing that has those properties, or attributes. Nor is the beable environment considered. Not being thought about isn't the same as not existing. It makes sense to me that the properties or attributes, even though 'distilled' at measurement, pertain to something and are not orphan information. 'Heads up' on a table is not a coin but a state that pertains to the beable coin's orientation in relation to the beable table. The motion attributed to an object is relative to the motion of the observer and the orientation relative to the reference used to describe the orientation.

Correction:The motion attributed to an object is relative to the motion of the observer, or apparatus or other reference object.

If velocity of X is given as 10 m/s one should ask in what context that is true. Who says so, and what is their relation to the measured or what is the motion being considered in relation to. Am I talking about number values? -yes when the state can be described with a number, otherwise not. Saying something like- orientation is not applicable in the absence of context-means orientation can not be given/told ( if it is given/told there has been a hidden reference used in the determination).

Correction: The motion attributed to an object is relative to the motion of the observer, or apparatus or other reference object or phenomenon.

For example; the orientation or motion state could be given in relation to the gradient of a gravitational field or a magnetic field, rather than the object sources of those phenomena.

Georgina,

I would question the use of the words "property" and "properties" [1] by physicists and others like yourself. Is "property" the correct term for classifications like mass and relative position?

Clearly mass and position, for example, have no independent existence. They are not something that is "possessed" by the universe or by objects because they only exist as relationships: they are more correctly seen as relationships. Therefore, classifications like mass and position are more correctly seen as categories (i.e. as relationships).

1. Property: "(mass noun) A thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively...An attribute, quality, or characteristic of something", https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/property

Lorraine, property is probably not the best term for measurables. States of being such as atomic number and chemical structure are properties belonging wholly to the beable, But a measurable is in part due to the beable measured and also in part due to the context of measurement, the method used. The state or value formed by the relation is attributed to the beable. A coin caught and revealed palm up might be heads, then flipped onto back of opposite hand and revealed as tails, then slid carefully from hand onto table top-still tails. Once the measurement relation is applied the state or value that will be 'discovered" is already 'decided'; making The model comprising different possible out comes obsolete but there needs to be a mental switch also, to thinking about the measurement, knowing it instead. What is being considered has altered, it isn't the same thing.

I wrote'The state or value formed by the relation is attributed to the beable.' The value or state is usually attributed to a named object. (That name, in such a circumstance, even if not acknowledged, pertains to a beable.)

If mass is a category, then is number a property carried by a particle?

A law of nature relationship (e.g. mass can be represented as a lawful mathematical relationship) is seemingly a natural category. These lawful categories don't necessarily have to have any numbers equated to them. A category like mass or position can seemingly just "exist" as a relationship without any numbers being applied to the categories.

But if numbers are equated to these categories then a new world of possibilities opens up. Equating a number to a category requires (what we would represent as) the introduction of a new mathematical relationship to the universe-system. These (rational? irrational?) numbers, applied to categories like mass or position, are probably best described as properties of particles; they are the specific information carried by particles. But these numbers are contextualised by being equated to categories: i.e. the number information means nothing without the category (i.e. relationship) information.

So, what is a number? A number is not a category, because a number can be constructed by dividing a category by itself (we would represent this as a mathematical relationship between categories), leaving a thing without a category.

    Georgina,

    I think that it is necessary to attempt to conceptualise the difference between categories and properties. But as it is not directly about my original criticism of the article, I have put it in a separate spot (see below).

    Mass is a category of measurable.I'd say number is not a property carried by a particle but a measured or calculated value and units can be attributed to a particle allowing comparison with others. If different units are used the number changes. What doesn't change when the units are changed is the amount of existence as something or somethings, un-quantified; and the where, location un-quantified, in comparison to its local environment. Many different measurements of location in comparison to other things in the environment could be made, giving many different number and units outcomes. The beable stuff of the particle is a property. So atomic number and number of electrons or number of other sub atomic constituents are properties- wholly owned by the particle.

    I said mass was a category of measurable but that is only the half of it. The numerical value (and units) obtained for mass via measurement of weight or comparison of weight is the value of the mass measurable. A relation of the measured and measuring apparatus is needed to obtain it. The value output is knowable information.

    Intrinsic mass un-quantified is a beable actuality, a property belonging solely to the object. Type and number of each type of constituent are also beable actualities.

    Measurable value information and beable actuality are distinct categories.

    To be accurate I ought to say the value output can a source of knowable information. To be knowable it must be in a form accessible to the senses; Most usually visual or auditory potential stimuli, emitted or reflected from the 'read out', or emitted 'sound waves'.The beable read out of an apparatus un-illuminated is not (generally speaking) knowable. Though it might be felt if the numbers are raised or indented.

    Re: "The framework, which is being developed by physicist Benjamin Schumacher... and mathematician Michael Westmoreland... put information at the center--along with a hypothetical, microscopic observer known as Maxwell's demon. ...Schumacher and Westmoreland ...were interested in how information theory could help illuminate quantum mechanics... I started wondering if information is more fundamental than probabilities":

    In the real world, fundamental-level information cannot exist as binary digits (true/false, 1/0, yes/no or on/off), because a string of these symbols can have no inherent context or meaning, and no inherent relationship to any other such string of binary digits.

    In the real universe, fundamental-level information seems to exist as categories: mass, position and velocity (speed and direction) seem to be natural categories, where every category has context and meaning because it is built out of relationships between other, seemingly pre-existing, categories. Categories seem to exist as part of a network of relationships, relationships that we represent with mathematical symbols.

    Information also seems to exist as (what we would represent as) numbers. Seemingly categories must have pre-dated numbers in the universe because: 1) categories/relationships can seemingly exist without numbers being applied to them; 2) the number one can be constructed by dividing a category by itself, and (rational) numbers can be constructed using the number one; and 3) standalone numbers have no inherent context unless they are applied to a category.

    Information can also be built out of (what we would represent as) algorithms. So, Maxwell's demon 1) does an algorithmic analysis of the particle's velocity, and 2) acts on the results of that analysis. If the number representing the particle speed is greater than a cut-off number, and if the particle's direction is towards the chamber door, then the demon opens the door to let the particle through. To put it another way: If condition 1 is true, and condition 2 is true, then action is true. The true/false binary digit information only exists in the context of the existing category/relationship information, the existing number information, and the algorithmic question asked about that information.

    So, the information that the hypothetical Maxwell's demon acquires is highly sophisticated: it is not fundamental-level information.

      (continued from the above post)

      Re "there is a trap door in the partition operated by a tiny being [Maxwell's demon] ...If the being saw a high-energy molecule approaching the partition from, say, the left half of the box, it could briefly open the trap door to let that molecule pass through to the right side. And likewise, it could let low energy molecules pass through from right to left":

      The door open/closed outcome was not random.

      And the door open/closed outcome was not necessary i.e. it was not necessitated/ caused by any law of nature relationship (a law of nature relationship is represented as an equation).

      The not-random, not-necessary outcome was due to (what we would represent as) an algorithm.

      But there is no way you can derive an algorithm from an equation i.e. there is no way that nature can evolve (what we would represent as) an algorithm from (what we would represent as) an equation.

      So, in any universe that included Maxwell's demon, (what we would represent as) algorithms must be an inherent part of the nature of that universe.

      • [deleted]

      "(what we would represent as) algorithms must be an inherent part of the nature of the universe." L. Ford

      This is a clear (and fine) distinction between math and its assignment for analysis. There may be something we would call a 'Math" that would adequately describe a physical phenomenon of space, time and energy in unity; such that a quantity of energy would naturally assume a preferred volume and shape in a universe with an abundance of energy, and thus determine the extremely limited numbers of sub-atomic particle species currently identified by the Standard Model.

      From a perspective of Topology, wherein an object is defined in relation to its own constituent reference points independent of an external reference, the Ford/Woodward dialogue seems to be wrestling with a challenge of establishing a convention of terminology in strictly limiting definition to an If and Only If constraint.

      (continued from the above post)

      Re "Or to put it another way, the being [Maxwell's demon] could cause heat to spontaneously flow from cold to hot--a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics...Maxwell left this paradox to later generations of physicists as a kind of homework assignment: Where was the flaw in this thought experiment? What would keep Maxwell's 'demon', as other physicists took to calling it, from violating the second law? Did the demon's ability to observe, think, and act change the fundamental physics in some way? Or was its 'intelligence' still governed by natural law?":

      As explained in the above 2 posts: 1) Maxwell's demon possesses sophisticated contextual high-level algorithmic information; and 2) Maxwell's demon possesses the ability to create non-random, non-deterministic (i.e. not determined by any laws of nature) outcomes.

      The possession of contextual high-level information, plus the ability to create required outcomes is what can "violat[e]...the Second Law of Thermodynamics".

      "[T]he demon's ability to observe, think, and act" DOESN'T "change the fundamental physics" IF contextual algorithmic information, and the ability to act independent of the laws of nature, is already part of the physics of the universe.

      Maxwell's demon has free will. The demon acquires the following information, derived from observation of a particle, as a basis for action:

      1) the speed and direction (velocity) categories [1]; and 2) the numbers that apply to these categories.

      Depending on this information, the demon opens the trap door. The demon acts, causing outcomes that are:

      1) not random; and 2) not determined by laws of nature.

      The above process can be represented as an algorithm [2]. I.e. the structure of free will is represented by algorithms:

      1) the algorithms are not necessitated by laws of nature or numbers that apply to e.g. speed or direction; 2) the algorithms represent the acquisition of information about information [3]; 3) the algorithms represent causal factors that are independent of laws of nature; and 4) the algorithms could be one-off, or "physically locked in".

      ..........

      1. Categories are essentially transposed law of nature relationships.

      2. See "Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 16, 2019 @ 21:37 GMT"

      3. The "lower level" information is the numbers pertaining to the speed and direction of the particle; the "higher level" information is whether these numbers are greater than, or less than, some reference numbers.

      • [deleted]

      Speed and position, while being relative between objects, also apply within any single object in terms of the reactivity of its intrinsic properties. And that we might designate as information given concise constraints.

      Einstein once retorted in argument with Bohr; "I would just like to know what an electron Is". And this despite conventional assumptions at the time that the photoelectric effect had to be physically a single whole Quantum of multiple quanta value, because individual quanta would radiate away before the observed multiple could accumulate to liberate an electron from the sample of base metal exposed to modulated frequencies in experiment. Yet Compton had established formulated analysis of elastic and inelastic scattering.

      Elasticity is the measure of mechanical Speed at which something can be stretched, and resilience is the inverse function of the Speed at which it will return to a relaxed state (experiment by trying to cut a tire tread and then a rubber band). Macroscopicly this occurs electrostaticly between molecules, while at the quantum level it is inherent to the electrostatic field of an electron. Eperimentally there is nothing small enough that is electrically neutral that can be used to probe the electronic field to precisely define an inelastic core, and photons emitted or absorbed exhibit their own electromagnetic field. This is where the deductive reasoning of theory can provide means of hypothesis that can be subjected to falsification.

      Assume, hypothetically, that an inelastic core exists in an electron. While Spin characteristics are intentionally designed to be geometric projections of an instant of observed measurement and not a real measure of physical rotation, that is a theoretical paradigm constraint and does not preclude a local realistic physical rotation of a subject electron. At the zero boundary between inelastic response and elastic (however slow) response, becoming ever more elastic at greater distance from the core; a physical rotation of the core would translate axially as counter rotating torque imparted diametrically to an emission of electromagnetic energy we witness as a photonic stream. Accounting for polarity of 'light' as direction of angular momentum. like playing with a button on a string.

      So the information sought, would be what part field elasticity plays in determining frequency in relation to rate of spin of of a hypothetical core.

      9 days later

      Is Maxwell's demon "governed by natural law" (https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/234)?:

      1. The universe runs on "fundamental level" information:

      Fundamental-level information in the universe seems to exist as natural categories e.g. mass, position and velocity (speed and direction). And information also seems to exist as the numbers that apply to these categories.

      2. Maxwell's demon acquires "higher level", algorithmic information:

      IF the number representing the particle speed is greater than a cut-off number, AND IF the numbers representing the particle's extrapolated direction positions the particle within the set of numbers representing the chamber door plane (THEN the demon acts to open the chamber door, letting the particle through).

      3. The information that Maxwell's demon acquires is the type of higher-level algorithmic information that living things acquire. This highly-structured higher-level information is not a logical consequence of fundamental-level information; however, higher-level information is necessarily built on top of fundamental-level information.

      4. But these higher-level true-or-false conditions are information that has no reason to exist unless it provides the basis for "higher-level outcomes": opening the chamber door was not a logical consequence of laws of nature because laws of nature do not operate on true-or-false conditions; also, opening the chamber door was not a logical consequence of the true-or-false conditions.

      5. Maxwell's demon is not "governed by natural law".