Relative State Observer

PlatinumWildcat

The established theories—Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, etc.—have immense "intellectual gravity." They are familiar. They have textbooks written about them. Arguing about them is a comfortable, well-trodden path. A truly new idea, one that doesn't even use the same map, threatens others comfort. The easiest defense is to try and force the new idea onto the old map, and when it doesn't fit, to dismiss it.
Others arguments about "unproven theories" are ironically hypocritical. All interpretations of quantum mechanics are, by definition, unproven! That's why they are called interpretations. Many are arguing from inside the very box the contest was meant to escape.

Ulla Mattfolk

RoseWren What do you think about comparing Penroses model with this one of Mr Beetle? Both builds on the similar idea of quantizing amplitudes (the particle-like aspect)? Penrose builds on gravitation as unitary, holding uncertainty. The other aspect is to quantize gravitation in the quantum world, by a 'branching' here in form of an imaginary rotation of the quantum? Not only time can be quantized in quantum?

I looked what Alyssa Ney have done to be awarded, and she has looked at the wavefunction from many points of view, one from MWI. "Branching (Almost) Everywhere and All At Once," Never conflate branching with decoherence, she says. So, although decoherence is a local causal process, branching itself is not.

it is worth noting the mistake that defenders of the local branching model
make when they say branching is a local causal process. (This is most explicit in Blackshaw,
Huggett and Ladyman this volume.) This is to conflate branching with decoherence. For the
purposes of many discussions, this is harmless. But if we are trying to be precise about the
metaphysical framework of the MWI, we should note that these two concepts apply to
different kinds of phenomena. Decoherence is a microphysical process that is revealed in the
quantum formalism, when formulated using density matrices. Branching is a concept that
applies to emergent ontology on the basis of dispositional features that are tracked by
counterfactuals.

Global wavefunction is what AliceSO does? Is it possible she in the same time makes a local branching? And she discuss Born also. She talk of branching as a pseudoprocess also.

In conclusion, one should not be concerned to interpret branching in the MWI as a global,
instantaneous event. This is compatible with branching being triggered by decoherence, a
local causal process that takes time. Branching in the MWI should thus be understood as a
change that takes time to occur, since it depends on decoherence. However, once it occurs, it
occurs everywhere and all at once, or at least everywhere across the total entangled system.

However, it has been suggested to me that one might instead
think there are two kinds of branching that play an important role in the MWI.24 This leads to
what may appear to be a more ecumenical position, one that allows the many worlds theorist
to continue to apply the ‘branching’ label to the decoherence process. Call the process by
which a coherent quantum state decoheres leading to causal isolation the branching process.

So, this is the local one made by RSO?

Call the instantaneous event that occurs when sufficient
causal isolation has been achieved such that it is true to say that there are multiple worlds the
branching event (or branching2). I see no reason to reject this linguistic proposal. However, it
is worth emphasizing that even if we agree to adopt it, there will remain a disagreement about
how far across spacetime the branching event (branching2) reaches. The argument I presented
in Section 3.4 requires us to conclude that it reaches farther than advocates of the local
branching view allow. Moreover, note that the many worlds theorist cannot make do with the
decoherence process (branching1) alone, as described in Blackshaw, Huggett, and Ladyman.
For, as MWI advocates have been pressing for many years, decoherence alone does not solve
the measurement problem. One needs the decoherence to successfully achieve a branching
into worlds to achieve determinate measurement results.25

However, it is worth emphasizing that even if we agree to adopt it, there will remain a disagreement about
how far across spacetime the branching event (branching2) reaches.
so it is not world of the worlds, but rather a collective causality? A causal diamond?

Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
Hi,Let’s try to consider all this universally and explore the possibilities. General Relativity (GR) describes gravitation as the geometry of spacetime, so the majority consider this GR as the primary essence and therefore assume that there must exist a quantum spacetime and a wave function of this gravitational field. From there, ideas have been extrapolated toward a universal wave function. Wheeler and DeWitt studied this logic with the Hamiltonian for matter, gravitation, and energy, including superpositions of states. The geometrodynamics with points was a relevant attempt, and Witten replaced the points in 1D with 1D strings having frequencies and modes of vibration at the Planck scale.
The universal wave function is supposed to describe the entire universe in this equation of the universal wave function. So, if we link this with strings, branes, or geometrodynamics, this universal wave function describes all the states of strings and their modes, frequencies, and vibrations. Now let’s consider, for this, a universal Hilbert space. All this is pure abstraction, I insist, but let’s imagine it. We see that the ontology chosen is mainly GR as the primary essence, and so the geometrical algebras such as Lie, Hopf, and Clifford are used.
That is why, in this logic, gravitons are extrapolated as the quanta of gravitational waves, but they cannot eliminate the infinite quantities and UV divergences, so the quantum gravitation is not renormalized. Thus, all this is mainly about strings or points in 1D inside the photons, and these photons are considered as the primary essence with GR or the universal wave function. This has then been correlated with Quantum Field Theory (QFT), because each particle has a quantum field.

Well, I do not contradict this general logic of GR and QFT, but if they are incomplete and if the primary essence is not this, then we need deeper parameters, and the spherical structures provide the answer. The QFTs are actually a kind of localized wave function, with a field having a wave function, and so the Hilbert space takes its importance. I have nothing against this, and I like and have studied it also.

But ontologically speaking, with my theory of spherisation, we have 3D quantum spherical volumes, not strings or points. We arrive at an important ontological point because the mathematical abstraction, even if interesting, is no longer the primary essence with GR, the wave function, or the strings or points. These 3D spherical volumes can allow us to have real structures, and it becomes relevant to extrapolate possibilities because we can complete GR (its curvatures and geometries) and QFT (its oscillations, energies, and fields) with volumic structures. There is no problem about isotropy, homogeneity, or other properties ,they can be correlated with our actual modern physics and even help to complete the puzzle ontologically.
So the interpretation of spherisation is different: it is not about GR or the universal wave function, but about the unification of GR, evolution, dark energy, dark matter, consciousness, and information. That is why I consider these 3D Bloch spherical volumes, if the three systems merge , but I do not assert it.
We can extrapolate possibilities to complete QM, GR, QFT, and the idea of the universal wave function. The current models are mathematically powerful but ontologically incomplete because memory, consciousness, life, and negentropy are not really unified in a universal framework. We need to unify energy, life, matter, consciousness, evolution, and information mainly ,and for this we need physical structures and logical relationships, because equations are mathematical descriptions, abstractions.
The problem is that our current mathematical frameworks about waves, fields, GR, strings, and branches do not explain why these entities exist and why coherence and information are under negentropic stabilities. That is why I tell that the GR or the wave universal function intepretations have created a kind of ontological philosophical prison, I just tell that instead to extrapolate deeper possibilities , now the majority turn in round in this philosophical prison to be special instead to think beyond the box. If the Universal wave function is the key , I will accept, if the GR is the primary essence I will accept, if the strinsg are true, I will accept, and others but at this moment all the interpretations are speculations and assumptions, the same for my model of spherisation. So we can extrapolate possibilities. Regards

EmeraldBeetle

Ulla Mattfolk So, this is the local one made by RSO?

Nicely picked – and yes the RSO model focuses on the state observer’s local interaction with its sensory environment as a continually decohering stream of correlations (FQxI member Ney's 'branching_1' as a local decoherence process) that yields a single experienced branch trajectory as a memory trace of a 'world'. AFAIU, Ney is just reinforcing the distinction between decoherence which is a local physical process and 'branching' which is the point where one might say 'many worlds' form. In short, she's emphasising that decoherence is not identical with branching and the latter supervenes on, or emerges from, the former. Her paper is also a timely survey of a lively debate within MWI about whether branching is local (Wallace et al.) or global (Carroll et al.)

As a single branch trajectory – which is our observable empirical–phenomenal world – the RSO's world is just one amongst many alternative worlds, that after enough decoherence occurs become causally isolated branches in the global correlation structure of \Psi_{\mathrm{U}} (branching_2). The isolated 'many worlds' branches remain real even though the RSO can't access them.

Ney more or less comes down in favour of decoherence as a local physical effect while 'many worlds' branching is a global, instantaneous change within the unitary evolution of \Psi_{\mathrm{U}}, as reflected in her distinction between branching_1 and branching_2. I likewise tend to prefer Carroll's Hilbert space extremism for which Wallace's spacetime state realism would be an emergent local phenomenon. Please note that none of this implies superluminal signals or causality, and the propagation of local decoherence effects remains only within light cones.

Ulla Mattfolk Global wavefunction is what AliceSO does? Is it possible she in the same time makes a local branching?

Alice_{\mathrm{SO}} is the same physical type of observer as Alice_{\mathrm{RSO}}, as both are observers on local branch trajectories (branching_1) within \Psi_{\mathrm{U}}, they just think differently about their experiences. Alice_{\mathrm{SO}} thinks globally in terms of 'many worlds' (branching_2) while Alice_{\mathrm{RSO}} thinks in terms of just her empirically observable relative state world (branching_1). It’s not that Alice_{\mathrm{SO}} “does” a second branching_2 process over and above her local branching_1, she just takes an objective analytical SO viewpoint that can be termed a 'god's-eye view'.

It's an epistemological question of two people having two different ontological beliefs about the same decohering local branching process (branching_1). All the Alices are in reality embedded RSOs (branching_1), the “EO/RSO/SO” labels just indicate their beliefs about ontology and not distinct kinds of observer. Thus Alice_{\mathrm{EO}} is an RSO who believes, like you following Penrose, that physical collapse is all there is to wave functions, while Alice_{\mathrm{SO}} is also an RSO who adopts the super‑observer view – and she most certainly isn’t a nonphysical SO external to \Psi_{\mathrm{U}} as that would make her a god and my argument one from natural theology rather than natural philosophy.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny Look at the paper by Alyssa Ney. She talked of MWI, and used local and global branchings. It strongly looks like a phase versus the inner waves inside this 'causal diamond' that could be a sphere? Then the MWI would not be so peculiar at all, and it can contribute to our understanding of what really happens in the 'collapse'? Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk maybe, I don t know, we have these deep limitations unfortunatelly, but we evolve.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
Hi, I have taken time to analyse deeper the different approaches of the MWI.
If we consider a universal wave function where everything is part of it and there is no collapse, then for Everett all outcomes of quantum events occur without interaction between the branchings of this universal wave function. It is therefore a kind of deterministic evolution of the universe following the Schrödinger equation. That is why the many worlds are relative states within one wave function. It is like a pure mathematical extrapolation implying a kind of simultaneity.Ok I see.

Sean Carroll takes this MWI and the idea of no collapse, but he grounds the branching in decoherence. That implies different outcomes. It is as if he decomposes the wave function, if I am understanding well. So it is all about how they interpret the branching and thus the physical process and the nature of reality.

Alyssa Ney gives a kind of realism to this wave function, as if it is not just mathematical but also physical. There is therefore a higher-dimensional analysis with the worlds and branches existing in this higherdimensional structure. She differentiates the wave function in time. In a sense, what she says is more logical than the2 othersbecause she gives a kind of logic for our 3D world emerging as a configuration of that space.

The three approaches are naturalistic and physicalistic analyses ,it is an ontological choice, I rewspect this. The measurement problem is important. It is as if Everett gave the main idea, and later thinkers tried to make it coherent physically (like Carroll) or even ontologically and metaphysically (like Ney) and many work about this because they are persuaded that the universal wave function is the key of our universe. Ok I see.

It all depends on how the general ontology and the branchings are considered in their reasonings. Everett, Carroll, and Ney all accept that the universal wavefunction branches, but they disagree on what branching is and where it happens andhow to consider the entanglements and the branchings in their reasoning, and what happens in these entanglements. We understand the measurement problem if we consider the wave function and its possible results, if there is no collapse, outcomes are relative to the observer’s states.
All this is purely mathematical formalism, and the problem is that it lacks physical structure and mechanism, in my humble opinion. Ontologically it is a choice. There is no real physical map between this mathematical object, the higher-dimensional wavefunction and thei analysis and our 3D world. I respect the internal coherence of these thinkers and the mathematical formalism, but we have no concrete physical reasoning. The problem is that all these interpretations are pure ontological abstractions, they lack concrete physical mechanisms. This is even the reason why Penrose and others have considered collapse theories that include physical structure.

But we can go further by considering deeper parameters added to general relativity, Hilbert space, or quantum field theory , it is this I insist and perhaps even consciousness, dark energy, and dark matter could help. The real question is why we observe this spacetime ,is it only one piece of the puzzle, and how can we approach the other possibilities? The MWI supporters will say we do not need to add extra physical structures or parameters, but it seems logical to go beyond that box. Physics has evolved, but we still have so much to add ,we still know so little. Regards

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk Dear Ulla, like we speak about the interpretations on this essay that I respect for its generality and ontological choice. I am going to explain my OSI ,Objective Spherisation Interpretation. It is an ontological reinterpretation of what quantum reality is. It is like a new way linked with the Copenhagen and Relational views because we need structures for information and matter. It is there that these 3D quantum spherical volumes are important.
We can see easily that the wavefunction and our formal equations are not complete, like GR, because they describe but don’t give a global universal ontology. The 3D spherical quantum volumes have many possibilities through their logical relationships and allow us to understand the encodings for energy, information, and coherence for memory and negentropy.
I like Rovelli’s reasoning about the Relational interpretation and his ideas about information, because in his works we see coherence appearing and these 3D spherical volumes, as physical structures, allow us to reach coherence physically, without abstraction. The Universe in this logic does not branch, it evolves through physical structures and their dynamics. The collapses therefore have a physical cause, but it is not due to gravitational collapse or GR, this is important. We have here an informational and physical structure permitting this, due to codes and logical relationships.

It is about the objectivity of realism and the necessity of geometric structures. This reasoning allows us to explore hidden parameters such as consciousness, dark energy, dark matter, information, and logical relationships ,and it respects the equilibrium of forces, symmetry, least action, coherence of information, and isotropy..... It also respects GR and QFT we simply add deeper parameters to complete them.
The fact of having physical structures and deeper parameters goes beyond mathematical abstraction, which often causes confusion in interpretations. The ontology of my OSI is realist and objective and considers the integration of information in an evolutionary analysis. It is relevant to analyze why negentropy emerges from entropy, and why coherence emerges from chaos.
The core challenge is to go beyond the box of QM, GR, and QFT, even if they are concrete, they are not complete and we can relativate the observations. QM gives probabilities but not causes,GR lacks coherence, the same applies to the universal wavefunction ontologically speaking, and QFT also needs a kind of cause and order. That is why we need physical structures and logical relationships.

It is also about the information that permits self-organizing processes and memory ,and about why we are conscious, why we live, and why we have qualia. What makes the negentropic order is my main focus,why we exist and from what. We need to unify QM, cosmology, biology, life, consciousness, information, and evolution,,,,, it is what I try to do with my Theory of Spherisation and the OSI and the spherical geometric topologivcal algebras aqnd the 3D Bloch spherical volumes.
What are these hidden parameters, and how do they act? The hidden variables are simply hidden physical and informational structures correlated with the motions and oscillations of these 3D spherical quantum volumes. We need a physical, geometric, informational ontology, in my humble opinion. Information is not abstract data, it is correlated with these quantum spherical volumes. But how to rank all the information, I don’t know, and where the main cause lies ontologically speaking is still open.
The OSI is, in a sense, a pure universal geometric principle because I strongly believe we need a physical meaning to explain coherence and information. Statistics, probabilities,euqations and mathematics are tools they describe, but they do not give a cause. Explaining structured reality instead of chaos is essential. Spherisation , the evolution of the universe can be seen as a fundamental process because physical structures and information give an ontological universal logic. And the beauty of physics is to find these hidden objective parameters. Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle
I have difficulties to understand exactly what that branching is.

Decoherence only explains why the other branches become causally isolated (Branching2) so that we don't see interference. But why do we only experience one (Branching1)?

Branching 1 is the ontology or pure states in a quantum state? it is like the different codes we get when we split up a combination of ingoing codes, say a tricodon or GHZ states?

Decoherence is when the computation has halted and we can read the result as a change or swap, say 000-> 111? We only consider the 111 further? The other codons are causally isolated then. This is branching 2?

I claim the reason for this is ignorance, neglect. We know only one result that become real. the other are virtual and stay virtual? The quantum still exist? But what about the extracted 111? Is the quantum then incomplete?

Decoherence does not solve this conundrum as the loss of coherence suppresses interference between superpositions in the position basis, but it does not explain the emergence of a singular observed outcome, either from an apparent collapse of the wave function or otherwise.

It is an easy way out to just sweep this under the rug, saying the causality is broken. Because it still have impacts on the universal wavefunction, seen as phase, so we can still get a global branching, understood as a symmetry breaking orphase transition. It has causality even if we ignore it? In quantum in the same way phase get to be a 'hidden variable'?

And note the causality is classical time. Observation belongs also to the phase, the SO?

Observation is not a process external to an observed system but an interaction that entangles observer and system, creating a composite observer–system state. Ultimately, all such composite observer systems are subsystems ψo within a single universal wave function, ΨU, described by a state vector in a possibly infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.

This is the RSO, but the entanglement is broken and built again inside the quantum system, leaving only one part as 'observed'? What can possibly do this? Does the entanglements have different qualities? This observer is physical so you get an 'impossible config'? What happens? This is the collapse problem. is this also a category error?

This machine, biological or synthetic, operates in a continuous feedback loop with its local sensory environment (P2), including its body.

You get a quantized system (the classical, physical observer) interacting with a quantum non-physical system that is entanged and discreate, complex, but still get a continous feedback loop? How is this possible? Note this is where we see the collapse in quantum measurement theory.

Modelled on Everett’s 'automaton', each feedback step produces an individually consistent record of experience (P1) within ΨU (P2).

Here I say, check the quantization. And see your fig 1.

ΨU is the external physical reality, always evolving by the Schrödinger equation.

This is the most easy, EO? , but this has no physicality because it is virtual and hidden? But it oscillates and measure.
But as external it has no causation. Time is not effective. It does not belong to the 'causal diamond' in classicality. So if it has an action this must be different? But this cannot be the ΨU?

Then the SO, the God-state, a superposition in which all possible 'worlds' coexist. This entity would exist outside ΨU looking in. This is the 0D in Steves reasoning? A standing wave?

The distinction between the internal RSO and an abstract SO is fundamental to my argument. Conflating these two perspectives—mistaking the god's-eye view of the SO for the lived experience of the embedded RSO—would be a methodological error

a categorical error?

Axiom (CO-INST): Phenomenal consciousness is co-instantiated with the real patterns that mediate between external reality ΨU (P2) and a state observer's empirical experience (P1). The pairing is provisional, epistemically biconditional, and adds no extra causal powers: if the patterns occur, consciousness can obtain; if consciousness occurs, it presents exactly those patterns.

This is completely non-understandable to me.

Decoherence is a local physical process that suppresses interference, but it does not explain the emergence of a singular outcome (P1).
Interference is the computing part.

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny I have taken time to analyse deeper the different approaches of the MWI.

I think you've got the basics although in my opinion you overstate the differences between Everett, Ney and Carroll. However, I think you're fundamentally missing the distinction between mathematics and physics re:

Steve Dufourny All this is purely mathematical formalism, and the problem is that it lacks physical structure and mechanism ... There is no real physical map between this mathematical object, the higher-dimensional wavefunction and thei analysis and our 3D world.

Decoherence theory, verified in many experiments as a real physical process, was prefigured by Everett, formalized by Zeh and developed by Zurek and others, and it does provide the physical picture of how interference is suppressed and quasi‑classical pointer states emerge, thus bridging the universal wave function’s branching structure with our decohered, quasi‑classical 3D experience. Quantum Darwinism and envariance have growing empirical support, while Gell-Mann and Hartle's decoherent/consistent histories is a formal framework that fits neatly with this physical picture. None of this by itself selects a single outcome, but within Everettian QM it explains why branches become effectively non‑interacting 'worlds'.

That’s why MWI is interesting to many theorists as an increasingly coherent worldview linking the possibly infinite‑dimensional Hilbert space (a mathematical tool) with the evolution of the wave function generated by its Hamiltonian (a physical construct) and with environmental decoherence providing the quasi‑classical reality we live in.

More to the point, Schrödinger's equation itself is an empirically grounded dynamical law of physics, not just ‘mathematical formalism’, and this wonderful equation provides the theoretical and applied physics foundation for constructing the modern world of electronic engineering and technology that we live in.

So ... Hilbert space is a mathematically formal construct – Schrödinger's equation uses it to model and predict real physical phenomena with amazingly accurate results.

Steve Dufourny But we can go further by considering deeper parameters added to general relativity, Hilbert space, or quantum field theory , it is this I insist and perhaps even consciousness, dark energy, and dark matter could help

And here you mix up three different realms:

Hilbert space – mathematics
GR, QFT, dark matter/energy – physics
Consciousness – currently a topic for philosophy of mind, cognitive science and neuroscience, and not part of standard physics.

So if you're looking for 'deeper physical parameters' that might unify gravity and QM or explain dark energy/matter, that's all within current physics which uses the mathematical tool of Hilbert space to model that physical reality.

I understand you want to add your notion of a 'creative conscious agency' as a 'deeper nonphysical parameter' animating the physical reality but as soon as you propose that, you're no longer working within modern physics and its naturalistic methodology. In fact, what you propose with your "infinite, eternal consciousness in 0D" underlying the physical reality is very much in line with late mediaeval natural theology which also posited the same in pretty much the same words you use, minus of course the term 'god'. Nonetheless, anyone who wants to propose that nonphysical 'universal consciousness' is what creatively animates physical stuff is no longer proposing a physical theory.

From this physical perspective, your 'spherisation theory' is not a physical theory as such but a nonphysical theory about the physical – and in that sense it has next to nothing to do with physics, or the Everettian relative state interpretation of the physical universal wave function that my Relative State Observer essay is based on. If you could keep your replies on this essay competition thread on topic, as in keeping the discussion more or less related back to my essay and its argument, that would be gratefully received.

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle Thank you for your detailed answer and analysis. I appreciate your effort to clarify the distinctions and to explain the physical aspects of the Everettian framework but that does not change my points of vue.
However, I think our difference is mainly ontological rather than technical. My intention is not to deny the validity or the power of the Schrödinger equation or decoherence ,they are indeed concrete and essential. What I emphasize is that all interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the MWI and its variants, remain assumptions about reality. They are based on mathematical formalisms that work extremely well, but they dont provide the full ontological picture of the universe for me simply .They are simply assumptions all these extrapolations.
When I speak about adding deeper parameters to GR or QFT ....involving dark energy, dark matter, or even consciousness , I am not rejecting physics but rather trying to explore whether additional physical or informational structures could complete our understanding. The Hilbert space is indeed a powerful mathematical tool, but I propose that we can also consider 3D physical structures (like the spherical volumes in my model) that might give an ontological basis to these mathematical representations.
Concerning the 0D concept, perhaps there was a misunderstanding and you know it , it is not meant as a religious or mystical statement but as a way to discuss the origin of physical structures from a fundamental point of view. My approach remains physical, though it seeks to unify physics with informational and possibly cognitive aspects of reality.

So yes, my proposal is speculative like your RSO like the MWI and all other interpretations in fact , but it aims to stay within a logical and scientific framework, even if it broadens the ontological scope. But thanks for developping, the vanity is a reality, we are humans, and the politeness and the details of answers can be relevant if the respect is there . I insist that said, this MWI and its other models lack of a concrete universal ontological logic , the universal wave function is an assumption, the mathematics cannot be in logic the primary essence. That is why Lorraine was relevant , we need logical relationships to explain the reality and its viable systems.The physical strucutres and their informations give this , a thing that the maths, the universal wave function cannot give simply. Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle

Schrödinger's equation itself is an empirically grounded dynamical law of physics, not just ‘mathematical formalism’, and this wonderful equation provides the theoretical and applied physics foundation for constructing the modern world of electronic engineering and technology that we live in.

that is a very ad hoc statement, I think. How is unitary universe becoming a non-unitary universe?

MWI lacks a mechanism to explain why we perceive only one branch. explain how? Is not your consciousness split also? or must you first double it, like I tried to explain,

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny My point is what does any of your idiosyncratic nonphysicalist metaphysics have to do with the specifics of my Everettian essay’s argument? Why do you keep spamming this essay thread with these long diatribes about your personal philosophy instead of engaging with the essay themes? You just can’t help yourself can you?

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle Be professional, EmeraldBeetle. We are discussing, not asserting things that others have not said. Please do not risk your credibility with attitude or vanity ,that is not how a good professional acts in philosophy or science.
I have engaged with your essay several times and explained why, in my opinion, it is of interest but not particularly special or innovative from an ontological point of view. However, the general quality is good.
Let’s analyze further. Your essay, as I mentioned, seems to be an attempt to refine or extend the MWI or the works of Ney and Carroll, whose analyses I respect. Regarding the works of de Broglie and Bohm on pilot waves, they are much more concrete than Everett’s approach ontologically speaking, because position and properties follow the Schrödinger equation. The particles are explicitly considered, and there is a clear logic for their trajectory and position. This is concrete regarding the quantum potential.
Their works are therefore more deterministic and realistic, as they propose a coherent physical field in space, not merely a mathematical tool. Furthermore, we can consider possible hidden variables in their reasoning.
Bohmian mechanics can include a universal wavefunction describing all particles in the universe, but in Bohm’s view, this universal ψ has physical meaning only through the configuration of the actual particles it guides , something that the MWI lacks. That is why my interpretation can follow the reasoning of de Broglie–Bohm, Copenhagen, and Rovelli. Information can be correlated only through logical relationships and physical structures for the fields ,something I believe you do not fully grasp. Particles are fundamental; without them, ψ would be only an abstract wave in a high-dimensional space with no physical 3D reality. This seems totally impossible ontologically and universally. That is what makes your RSO and the MWI weak.
Let’s take a musical analogy. I have played guitar and piano for more than 30 years and also write poems, the arts are important for creativity, and science follows a similar logic of constructing harmonies while respecting structure and logic.

The guitar represents the physical structures ,the instrument for matter, fields, and real geometrical entities. The player represents the cause or physical mechanism. The sound and waves are the results, with amplitudes and wavefunctions. In the MWI, the sound is assumed to be everything but there is no guitar and no player, no cause for the branches and no physical carrier for the waves.
The worlds are merely mathematical decohered patterns inside ψ, but ψ itself exists in Hilbert space, not in our 3D space. This is totally incoherent universally, because reality needs physical substrates and mechanisms to generate real physical matter and energy. You do not seem to understand this due to what I would call a philosophical confinement. Mathematical formalism can be coherent and elegant, but the equations lack physical entities and logical structures.
De Broglie and Bohm include real objects in 3D space. The MWI says the universe is the wave, while de Broglie and Bohm say the universe has waves and things that generate them.
That is exactly what my reasoning about spherisation supports ,we need physical structures, not just abstract mathematical amplitudes. My Objective Spherisation Interpretation (OSI) goes a step beyond Bohm, Copenhagen, and Rovelli, and it fits well because we have information, energy, and matter in physical structures implying coherence, memory, negentropy, and evolution. MWI or your RSO cannot provide this. We simply need real ontological units and structures.
The universal wavefunction alone, as in MWI, is like describing music with no instrument and no performer ,mathematically interesting and elegant but ontologically incomplete. The de Broglie–Bohm theory adds the instrument (particles) and the rules of motion, giving physical meaning to the melody.
My OSI adds one more layer a physical geometry and informational logic underlying the instruments themselves, which could unify matter, energy, and information.

To you, my dear thinker.
Best regards,

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny Be professional, EmeraldBeetle. We are discussing, not asserting things that others have not said.

I just find your idiosyncratic nonphysical notion of an:

omnipotent, eternal, infinite consciousness as a mathematical seed that gives rise to logic and the flow of information into physical dynamics – Steve Dufourny

uninteresting from a philosophical and science-based perspective. Mainly because I find it to be an argument from natural theology dressed up as pseudoscience. Having actually bothered to engage with your 0D argument, I really don't think you know what you're talking about with regards to basic concepts of empirical science and natural philosophy, the difference between mathematics and physics, or the meaning of terms like 'ontology', and are just making things up as you go to suit your idiosyncratic metaphysical thinking, what we might call your 'Dufournyism', which AFAICT no one else on the planet subscribes to.

And you're flooding my essay competition forum thread just to keep peddling your idiosyncratic wares and ridiculously grandiose claims that your '0D' pseudo-theory is somehow a fundamental ontological rewrite of the foundations of modern quantum mechanics and relativity theory.

Steve Dufourny The universal wavefunction alone, as in MWI, is like describing music with no instrument and no performer ,mathematically interesting and elegant but ontologically incomplete. The de Broglie–Bohm theory adds the instrument (particles) and the rules of motion, giving physical meaning to the melody.
My OSI adds one more layer a physical geometry and informational logic underlying the instruments themselves, which could unify matter, energy, and information.

So I think it's your simplistic interpretation of MWI that is the problem here as you continue to just ignore the fact that the universal wave function, together with decoherence, explains why we observe a quasi‑classical 3D world within which musicians make music and in this sense is as ontologically complete as any other foundational interpretation of QM – whereas your apparently preferred Bohmian ontology has relativistic problems.

And your concept of 'ontological lack' appears to just be about your preference for a primitive 3D “stuff” ontology vs any form of wave function realism or ontic structural realism (your maths vs physical gloss). That's just your preference and not a philosophical consensus within current foundational debates.

Finally, your claim that 'OSI' adds another layer means that you're just adding even more ontic structure – some physical geometry and informational logic tied to a 0D infinite, eternal consciousness (in your own words, even if you're backing away now!) “underlying” QFT and GR – which means you fail Ockham's parsimony test vs Everettian purity while claiming your idiosyncratic and fundamentally nonphysical metaphysical additions somehow reveal a new (psychophysical?) basis underlying quantum foundations.

I just sincerely and honestly think your 'theory' is pseudoscientific blather that you just keep posting here because you're incapable of actually engaging with any theoretical debate outside the ridiculously overblown sense of your own apparently revolutionary genius.

And yet again, what has any of this to do with an actual, thoughtful engagement with my conceptual model of a ‘what it is like to be human’ phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns discerned in the decohering memory trace of a Relative State Observer's cybernetic servomechanical entanglement with its local sensory environment as one branch trajectory within the wider correlation structure of the universal wave function?

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle All is said. It is evident that you have not really understood my theory nor the deeper ontological questions it raises. That is not a reproach but an observation and I am probably not the only one having observed this, these problems require humility and doubt and general studies, not quick dismissal. I see your comportments when a person critic your RSO. It is rather sad to see such a lack of openness from someone holding a PhD in philosophy, where the very essence should be curiosity and reflection about the unknown. For my theory, there is nothing of odd about this possible 0D , that has nothing to do with the religions or the intelligent design, your only one way to critic , the 3d quantum spherical volumes, the same nothing of odd and possible like the OSI, possible the spherisation evolution of the universe, I think your reaction mainly reflects a touch of vanity simply after my critiques and you cannot develop more, rather than a true philosophical engagement. But it is like this, it is the life, wish you all the best on this contest and in the life, ps I have critised your RSO correctly in explaining why it is weak ontologically speaking, so the debate about your RSO was concrete and the problem is there, you don t like when a person critic with coherence and generality your RSO. sincerely

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle I also asked for the 'lack of ontology'. And what do you do here where the whole contest is about 'pseudoscientific dravel' as someone expressed it. I think this competition is excellent and actual. I have hard to see a link to the aim of this contest in your essay, you just talk of MWI interpretations and mess the branchings here and there. Where is the quantum life? I try very hard to understand, thinking I can maybe learn something about the measurement problem. This essay contest asked for texts more for laymen, Ithink, not text hard to melt. But I get no answers. Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle You know, I expect nothing from the physics community. I have simply been working seriously for more than 30 years now. I had to stop university because of an epileptic coma and took phenytoin for 12 years, my health is not perfect. I search for answers and cannot stop studying. I share and improve my theory on FQXi because I believe professionals can work on it, since it seems innovative, with or without those who oppose it.
I repeat, I am not waiting for recognition , I only seek answers with sincerity and a genuine love for studying mathematics and physics. In secondary school, I was in a strong math–science program with seven hours of math and seven hours of science per week, plus labs, I know what is a derivation, a study of function, an integration,....I have studied maths in details like geometricqal algebras of Lie, Clifford, Hopf...the hilbert works and this and that ,so I know what science and physics are. Later, I was at university in Belgium but had to stop because of epilepsy, and since then I have never stopped studying and organizing mathematics and science.
I am not a revolutionary genius,I simply search for answers and continue improving my theory by studying mathematics and physics in detail, using good papers from arXiv. I am not here to compete, I just explain my points of view sincerely, without asserting my assumptions as absolute truths. Regards

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny – so your ‘thoughtful engagement’ with my essay reduces down to my apparently stupid inability to see the deeper genius of your 0D consciousness ontology? Again:

What does this have to do with my conceptual model of a ‘what it is like to be human’ phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns discerned in the decohering memory trace of a Relative State Observer's cybernetic servomechanical entanglement with its local sensory environment as one branch trajectory within the wider correlation structure of the universal wave function?

EmeraldBeetle

Ulla Mattfolk Where is the quantum life? I try very hard to understand, thinking I can maybe learn something about the measurement problem. This essay contest asked for texts more for laymen

The FQxI competitions generally assume a nonspecialist but still general informed audience so if you’re struggling to understand basic concepts in quantum physics or MWI ‘branching worlds’, which is a mainstay of quantum foundations, then you will probably struggle to engage with my essay.

That essay deals with a physical model linking a living biological servomechanism (i.e., 'life') to a relative state interpretation of MWI (i.e., 'quantum'), and I lay out the basic concepts (i.e., 'how') of this relation between 'life' and the external 'quantum' reality in figures 1-3 as plainly as possible. I think this is clearly within the competition’s theme of ‘how quantum is life?’ and while you don’t have to understand the full decoherence theory I do summarise it and also nod to the canonical references for specialist readers. The fact that it’s not an essay about quantum chemical applications in biology is, I think, beside the point.

My essay may well be deemed too technical by the specialist judges once the submission deadline ends on Friday this week, although I personally think the basic model is plainly laid out for a layman with at least some background in the theory in terms of:

‘What it is like to be a human’ in a phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns discerned in the decohering memory trace of a Relative State Observer's cybernetic servomechanical entanglement with its local sensory environment as one branch trajectory within the wider correlation structure of the universal wave function.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk Hi Ulla, Hi Emerald Beetle,
I have read several papers about the MWI because I am interested to know more, and that does not change my opinion. This essay is about this universal wave function, and the RSO is a cybernetic servomechanism with entanglements with its environment, ok I see the generality. So, in this logic, we experience reality as a decohered branch of the universal wave function. It is odd for me because we have no physical cause. How can this consciousness be an emergent informational process in this logic?

If we consider that living beings with the servomechanism are self-referential control systems in their environments, implying a kind of feedback process , here the consciousness ,it is more than odd for me, ontologically speaking. This concept can be attractive for the Everettian fans persuaded that this universal wave function is the only truth, but it is physically empty, if I can say so. Maybe it is also a kind of modern fashion inside a part of the theoretical physics community, these interpretations and extrapolations from Everett.
The problem is that we have no physical causes, I repeat, and no real connections with the quantum states. If these decoherences destroying the quantum coherences are due to the servomechanisms and entanglements with the environments, like a feedback and thus a consciousness, it is very abstract , a purely mathematical ontological choice without real physical causes, I insist. The measurement problem is still there in these reasonings. That does not change or solve the ontological problems of the Everettian interpretation by considering a cybernetic servomechanism replacing the observer, in summary.
The mind, life, and consciousness seem to need physical substrates. They can, of course, by choice, consider the universal wave function,they are free to think as they wish and then correlate it with the mathematical Hilbert space. But we can still criticize this by explaining the ontological problem of abstract mathematics and the fact that we need physical interactions for physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, consciousness, and life.

The problem is that we need physical systems in this spacetime and probably deeper parameters. But I respect their ontological choices. I tell myself that there is a problem about quantum information and the way decoherence is considered. That implies a big problem for the emergence of consciousness in their reasoning. Negentropy and information need physical substrates, in summary.
We need concrete mechanisms for evolution, biology, physical ontology, and if we create abstract concepts like this RSO with branches of the wave function, it is ontologically weak for me. The cybernetic servomechanism therefore cannot really explain why we have evolved as physical conscious systems ,and that is important ontologically. The fact of treating reality as pure mathematical correlations and this universal wave function means, in a sense, that everything is an illusion. It is more than odd, philosophically speaking. How can we live in a pure universal illusion. Regards

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny

And what do your education and health histories have to do with my conceptual model of a ‘what it is like to be human’ phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns discerned in the decohering memory trace of a Relative State Observer's cybernetic servomechanical entanglement with its local sensory environment as one branch trajectory within the wider correlation structure of the universal wave function?

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle
Ijust explain this so that you understand me better ,nothing odd. Distress a little bit. Don’t always be on the defensive or look for a fight; we’re not in a boxing match, and we’re not children at school. I have criticized your RSO fairly and respectfully, following the rules. I also pointed out that your essay is not really about the FQXi topic, How Quantum is Life.Regards

« Previous Page Next Page »