An interesting idea. Well presented and argued.Of particular interest to me as I have a long standing interest in time. Regards Georgina
Remembering the Future by Yehonatan Knoll
From "No need for dark-matter, dark-energy or inflation, once ordinary matter is properly represented?" by Knoll, arXiv 2020 (page 4): "... the problem with ... a paradigm shift ... One's proposal could elegantly solve a conundrum in one domain, but clash with observations in another, or even lack extensions thereto.. MOND being such an example ...". Consider 3 hypotheses: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. (2) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry is correct and MOND is wrong. (3) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry is wrong and MOND is correct. Is the following a good idea? Form a MOND-string study group? Google "witten milgrom".
David,
If you read a little more in that paper of mine, you find an extensive discussion of MOND - why it sometimes works so well and why it often doesn't. And I'm not using anything but (well-defined) classical electrodynamics! Occam's razor...
Please consider 3 questions:
(1) Does your theory predict that gravitons are spin-2 bosons?
(2) Do you think that the Koide formula is a meaningless coincidence?
(3) Do you think that my explanation of the proton charge radius puzzle is wrong? Please see the 1st comment in the comments section of the following:
It would be helpful to have a list of abbreviations like CE, ECD, BU, IVP, RBG ...
io §
The hint to arXiv:1201.5281 is va key a crucial inconsistency in Einstein's adaptation which could be the root causefor all the major problems in astronomy,".
The BU goes back not just to Riemann but already to Ben Akiba.
Corrections:
--- io § The hint to arXiv:1201.5281 is va key a crucial inconsistency in Einstein's adaptation which could be the root causefor all the major problems in astronomy,".--- should read:
The hint to arXiv:1201.5281 is a key to "a crucial inconsistency in Einstein's adaptation which could be the root cause for all the major problems in astronomy".
Sorry for the typos.
Thanks for the advice Eckard.
Regarding Ben Akiba (perhaps the Hebrew surname "Ben-akiva"?). Do you have any ref. ?
"All has occurred before", to quote rabbi Ben Akiba in Karl Gutzkow's Uriel Acosta (1846)."
A note regarding the relevance of my essay to the title of the contest.
The title obviously suggests that the limitations of machines may be relevant to foundational questions in physics. My essay argues that they aren't, since most physical systems are not machines. But they are irrelevant in a much more prosaic way. Turing's theorem, for example, proves that no single finite machine can handle an infinite set of tasks, namely, decide whether machine M halts on input I, for any pair (M,I). It doesn't prove, nor is there any reason to suspect, that there exists some (M*,I*) for which there does not exist a finite machine, deciding whether M* halts on input I*.
It is this latter, apparently false conjecture, which could have some relevance to physics, as it implies that no matter how we program our computer, it will fail at at a task relevant to physics - say - predict the outcome of an experiment, modeled by (M*,I*).
4 days later
Excellent article, well written and logically argued.
I completely agree with your premise that living organisms, unlike machines, possess genuine creativity and that a physics theory needs to accommodate that. I particularly resonate with your description of phenomena such as premonitions, synchronicity and intuitive hunches being the very opposite of the mechanistic "engineer's narrative" as I coincidentally was a mechanical engineer and statistician for 30 years only to experience a sudden intuitive awakening (for lack of a better term) about 5 years ago. This includes frequent clairvoyant images, intuitive insights and premonitions.
Although very unsettling at first (for a former hard-core skeptic), I have come to embrace this and explore it as rationally as I can to see where the rabbit hole leads. Although having next to zero training in physics and only a casual interest, I immediately became fascinated with the field as well as prime numbers, base-12 and ancient numerology for some reason. Eventually the connection made sense over the next few years as I pieced together a consciousness-inclusive model not unlike yours (my article is called "Primarily True" if you're interested in a look). I didn't even know about FXQi or the article contest until a week ago when I "happened upon" mention of it in a book I was reading by Dean Radin about Psi research. As I had just put together my model, the timing was perfect to submit an article. Ta-da!
Based on my somewhat unique perspective, I thought I would share a few comments that might be informative for your consideration... or at least amusing.
First, I now define a "living organism" as that which is consciously self-aware, thus not only limited to being physically embodied. I also consider the present as our 100% probable future with all other potentials as lesser probabilities of becoming. Like you say, our future can still be influenced by our actions, which to me amounts to altering which next outcome is most probable. And although our past has already been determined, I feel its memory is not necessarily fixed - i.e. our future re-informs how we perceive the past, effectively altering our perception (consciousness) of what really happened.
From my own experience, my ability to access a specific outcome from my "future memory" per se seems limited to the extent to which undecided free will (mine and others potentially affected by it) may influence it. In other words, the more inevitable and significant the event (such as a major forest fire), the earlier and more clearly I tend to pick up on it. Still, it is also because of free will I suspect that I am not generally able to avoid unpleasant events even if I sense them coming. I get the feeling too that we sometimes experience unpleasant circumstances if it serves the greater good of all involved... almost like taking one for the team!
Lastly, I don't believe all such future memory phenomena have a common physical origin but rather a common non-physical one - consciousness. I am confident both the physical and non-physical can all eventually be explained by a single physics model, once we treat consciousness-reality duality as the wave-particle duality of that theoretical approach. That's my take on things anyway... subject to continuous revision no doubt!
Sorry for the long-winded post and thanks again for the thought provoking article.
All the best,
Michael
Thanks for kind words Michael.
Regrettably, I don't share with you the optimism that the `big picture of life' would ever emerge from manipulations of symbols. Just trying to imagine what any conceivable physical theory would tell you about your personal experience of dying, drops you into a bottomless rabbit hole. And If one doesn't understand death (or birth) one doesn't understand life.
I also think one should be very careful in using words such as "consciousness" in a non poetic context. Words were first used when two anthropoids realized that by inventing "banana" and "my" they can spare themselves a fight. We are now at a point where abstract words resonate so differently in individual skulls, that they start fights instead. Stick to "bananas".
Best,
Yehonatan
Dear Yahonaton,
I find your paper very interesting and stimulating. Bravo! Yet, I would like to explain why I cannot agree with its conclusion and offer the following constructive comments.
Essentially: I do not believe in the block universe (BU) or in determinism. As you admit, the BU is a human contrivance; from my point of view it is an attempt to trump the fundamental and inescapable immersion in time of any subjective agent. (As human beings, for many reasons we would like to step out of time or beyond it.) Furthermore, determinism is an ambiguous concept, since 'determine' can mean either the power of one thing to fix the state of another; or else, the power of a subjective agent to ascertain a state of affairs. I think Hume showed the former meaning cannot hold, which leaves us only with the latter. Therefore, neither past nor future is determined (in the sense of fixed), but only in the sense and to the extent we are able to ascertain them. That is, both future and past are matters of speculation (as historians should admit).
"The phenomenon of memory, in this case, is merely an affinity between the states of a system at two distinct times..." This presumes the BU and the point of view of an external observer (a "gods-eye view). I view memory rather as a subjective state of an agent (the observer of the system).
"Machines can obviously remember their past. In particular, the nature of a randomly applied perturbation, p, to a machine in its past, can be inferred from its present state--'memory' m." Similarly, this is a view from an outside agent's perspective. From the perspective of the machine itself (if it makes sense to say it remembers then it makes sense to say it has a perspective), its memory is speculation, as must be its view of future events. An outside agent (the physicist) can imagine a BU, and imagine "remembering" both past and future events. But this is never the real situation for any agent as an actual epistemic subject--whether machine or human.
"A second, perhaps stronger reason for that skepticism [about psi], is the lack of any concrete model explaining the findings..." This is no doubt true as a human consideration about researchers, but it does not strictly amount to a logical reason for skepticism--nor, therefore, does the promise of a concrete model constitute a reason against skepticism.
I hope these comments will be of some use, or at least interesting.
Sincerely,
Dan Bruiger
Hello Dan,
The block-universe is not a philosophical stance. It is part of a highly successful physical model which, by its nature, must distance itself from solipsism, implicit in your attitude (personal experience being central). Physics is not only about observing some pointer in my lab point to "4.7". It is first and foremost about reproducing the results of other physicists, who lived in the past and at different places, and about communicating my results to others. The BU trivially provides the required platform for that, as other physicists are represented in it in exactly the same way as experimental settings are.
I used to be much more philosophically inclined in my youth. But then I realized that, insofar as it is philosophy, it must be expressible in words, and if it can be expressed in words, it cannot touch the truly deep issues of life (see my comment to Michael above). So my essay is just a modest conjecture in physics - nothing too deep. Its main novel points are:
1) Some systems do remember the future, in a measurable sense (most discussions about the arrow-of-time take for granted that it's impossible).
2) There is nothing strange about it. One only needs to adopt a language which is compatible with empirical observations - which is not the Newtonian language (and then QM is likewise equally natural).
Thanks for your comments!
Yehonatan
Hi, Yehonaton
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Essentially, I think we will have to agree to differ. But I do want to clarify that my position is not solipsism, which implies no real external world, or a refusal to focus on it. Rather, I hold that all experience (including scientific observation) is a product of subject and object interacting. Solipsism suggests all subject and no object. The BU is the opposite: all object and no subject.
Thanks again and all best wishes,
Dan
Dear Yehonatan,
Thank you for a very interesting essay. I am wondering if you have thought of your knowing the future with delayed choice quantum eraser experiments. In those, results of experiments depend on future activities. There is also a strange phenomenon called entangled in time (as opposed to space. Have you heard of these concepts?
While reading your essay, I also kept on thinking of the 2016 movie Arrival. There are a lot of similar themes.
Thank you!
All the best,
Noson
Thanks Noson,
As I note in the essay, standard QM formalism prohibits measuring a future perturbation to a quantum system (weak measurements possibly excluded) and Quantum Eraser experiments don't seem to be an exception; it's not that playing with the idler photon's detectors affects the signal in a (statistically) meaningful way (note that according to ECD, `photons' are not particles, on equal footings with electrons. Instead, a `photon' is detected when advanced EM waves converge on a particle, jolting it as a result of energy-momentum conservation). Nonetheless, according to my interpretation of QM, standard QM formalism becomes rapidly irrelevant with increasing system's complexity (hence that quantum computers are probably doomed) so I won't be too surprised if future memory is exhibited by certain microscopic systems.
"Entanglement in time" - I'll have to read about it.
Never heard of "Arrival", but perhaps, once I see it, its future memory will resonate in my essay :)
2 months later
Dear yehonatan I like your expose on the creativity of we humans,that we create machines,through our minds. nice. Do these machines mirror at least in part, or wholly their creators? I propose how maybe our cognitive abilities breed our view of the universe from micro to microscales here -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.i outline from a simple foundational level How all is biased by our human nature.kindly read/review it, all comments will be welcomed. Good work,All the best. regards.
13 days later
Hi Yehonatan
Fascinating essay. The title of course is paradoxical (and that's why it is inspiring?). Phenomenologically arrow of time is given by having memories of the past and none of the future. Having now memories of the future suggest that there exist an arrow of time that is independent of this phenomenology. But how would such an arrow of time then show up?
And yet: you were able to design an experiment on how one could measure, if there is a memory of the future. Bravo! I didn't grasp how this was possible.
I do not anything about these non IVP theories. Sounds really interesting.
From the point of view of the second law of thermodynamics and reversibility of underlying processes, I don't understand why we do not have memories of the future: the future is totally known. Either the law is reversible. Then we know what will be. Or it is reversible, then also we will know what will be: the coffee will be cold. But we do not know how warm it was before.
My take on the arrow of time in my essay is completely different. I describe the evolution from simple structures (high entropy) structure to complex ones (with low entropy). I say that the complex structures have a greater conceptual capacity. So simply stated, we do not have a memory of the future, because we lack the language to describe the future. Not so for the past.
Interestingly if there would be a prophecy (memory) of the future it would sound really fuzzy, because it would describe things that cannot be imagined yet.
Good luck in the contest
Luca
Dear Yehonatan,
thank you for your interesting essay.
Let me ask you a clarification question. In your approach, how do you distinguish correlation from causation?
For example, I am sure that the sun will rise tomorrow (in fact, I can vividly depict it in my imagination). Does this mean that I remember the future? If not, why not?
Best,
Markus
Markus,
When a mentalist predicts your imagined scene using priming techniques, you can regard the primer as the cause of the imagination which, in turn, can be regarded as a memory of the primer. Similarly, a future `primer' (perturbation in the essay) can be regarded as a (retro-) cause of your imagination which, in turn, can be regarded as the (future-) memory of the primer, if the imagination can be used to predict the `primer'.
As you can tell, my idea rhymes with the notion of "retrocausality". However, retrocausality alone is inconsistent with `future memory' phenomena; The underlying ontology must also be non-mechanistic/non-IVP - as I explain in the essay.
Best,
Yehonatan