A Gödelian Hunch from Quantum Theory by Hippolyte Dourdent

Hi Hippolyte,

Thank you for the very beautifully written essay. The introduction section discussing the topology of contextuality, the tension relating between local and global observations combined with Penrose Triangle was really very intuitive! Also the similarities between Hardy's paradox and the Liar's paradox were very clearly articulated.

The Wigner's friend paradox and freindification has always sat a little uneasily with me, although that is the experimental physicist in me coming out. Your conclusion ``Quantum paradoxes are not physical, but emerge from a lack of metaphysical distancing'' is certainly on the right track to explain these theoretical paradoxes.

Again, thanks for the great essay. It was really well written and I really enjoyed it! I hope you have enough time to take a look at my essay too.

Thanks,

Michael

Dear Hippolyte,

I enjoyed a number of things in your essay. Indeed, collaborators and I are presently (finally) constructing a response to the Frauchiger-Renner issue, and there is a small section of our paper that concerns a question of self-reference, which we dismiss summarily. Perhaps though there is a more solid argument for what we want to assert, and perhaps your paper, even if not directly addressing our concern, will inspire an idea in us. I encourage you to continue these lines of thought. "Although it can describe anything, a quantum description cannot include everything." - Asher Peres. Hear hear!

You correctly characterize QBism as having a "movable cut [which] is functional and not ontological." Jacques Pienaar has recently made a very nice contribution toward mathematizing the movability of the cut from a QBist perspective. In case it is of interest to you, it can be found here:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.14847.pdf

I don't know if any of that will be expressible in your framework, but it might be worth thinking on.

All the best,

Chris Fuchs

Dear Hippolyte,

1) Pigs can fly.

2) This statement is false.

Both of the above statements have something wrong with them. For statement 1, one would need knowledge of pigs to know that the statement is false. For statement 2, there is no need for external information; the knowledge of logic is all that is needed. If one did not know "logic" then how could the flaw with statement 2 and logic itself be explained? One would need to step outside of logic to explain the nature of logic. Languages as we know them (yes, even the communicates of animals) have logic, so we might not know a way to communicate with a being that did not possess logic. "Logic" seems to be hard-wired by evolution into our language center well before we became human because in evolution nothing so useful and complete language just appears.

Time is the problem with Quantum Theory. We live in the structure of time, so thinking outside of that structure is difficult. What if time was a function of entropy? The problem with entropy is that it is a collective state. A lone electron does not have a temperature or entropy state. We need an ensemble of atoms to define a state of entropy, which would define the "state" of time. Time ends up being the non-local of space-time. Going forward and back in time is possible and common at the quantum scale (I like to say "undefined" in space-time), but going "back" in macroscopic entropy is not possible. A positron could be considered an electron going backwards in time. A human-size time machine has entropy and must interact with the rest of the Universe to lower its entropy. Thermal dynamics is not reversible, while Quantum mechanics is fully reversible. An electron could kill its grandfather in childhood, but your grandfather is safe from that fate.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

Dear Hippolyte,

This is by far the best essay I read until now. It is highly illuminating, it is possible to understand it without a deep dig into literature first and one learns why becoming meta-observer is not a good thing:). 10/10.

Hippolyte -

A brilliant essay - and I'd like to thank Irek for pointing it out.

You've done a masterful job at building the theoretical case for what is intuitively obvious (at least since Godel) - that the world is fundamentally "liar-like" and therefore fraught with undecidables.

Although my essay lacks the rigor of yours, we are saying the same thing. Undecidability is a feature, not a bug, of physical and mathematical reality. I argue we can also extend this to the mind, and from an examination of the features of autonoetic consciousness (the mind looking at itself looking at itself) build a robust approach to understanding reality.

So far your's is the best essay I have read.

-George Gantz: The Door That Has No Key: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3494

Hippolyte,

One of the best wrestling matches against quantum theory I've seen! Excellent stuff. And of course I agree the conclusive question; "..quantum theory is more paradoxical than other physical theories. But is Nature itself paradoxical?"

However might there be a different possible starting assumption and mechanistic physical measurement sequence producing the data? Shockingly I suggest there might. Neils Bohr carefully made NO assumptions about pair morphology, but if we assume simple Poincare sphere vector distributions, and the same for polariser electrons, we have TWO distribution; polar curl and equatorial linear, going inversely to 0 over 90 degrees. Whats more, the change rates are Cos Theta Latitude (of the absorption interaction tangent point).

We now only need 'entanglement' as matching axis orientation angle, and vector addition in 3D, we can produce Malus' Law at the 2nd (photomultiplier) interaction, and NOT require non-locality! (think of it as changed ellipticity of re-emission, only the major axis triggering ONE channel, or 50:50 if circular polarity. I identify John Bell anticipated such a solution (touched on in this years essay but given in more detail last year). It was independently verified to violate bells inequalities by Trails computer code and plot.

Few seem able to follow this (DFM) process. I hope you can. Do question it.

But well done for your essay and good understanding of QM.

Very Best

Peter