Dear Edwin,

You are right, the issue of localism is central.

I don't think Bell's logic is flawed. Take the simplest case. A Caesium atom sends off two photons in opposite directions with unknown spin. Define "en route" as being from that event until either photon is involved in any physical event. So traveling through space, air or glass is "en route", but any physical interaction, like measuring its spin, is not en route. So if the apparatus has ANY physical effect, the photon is no longer en route. However it could, as you say, affect the photon's "hidden properties" which then become evident later when spin is measured. This is also what Einstein thought, so you are in good company here.

To evaluate this, note that photon spin is a binary outcome, with only two values, "up" or "down", for clockwise or anti-clockwise direction, and always by the same amount, which is Planck's reduced constant. That the spin outcome is probabilistic does not mean it is "changing", except if by that you mean entirely and totally reversing spin direction as it moves. So a photon is not like some cork on a quantum sea that continuously changes position as it bobs up and down. It is like a trap that irreversibly snaps shut the moment anything physically touches it, and does so clockwise or anti-clockwise randomly, i.e. not determined by prior physical events.

In entanglement, two such traps set off in opposite directions, and we find that if one snaps shut one way, the always goes the other way. So if the "apparatus" causes hidden "changes", why does it always change one up and the other down? Also the entangled photons can travel light years in empty space before the measurement, why does the "apparatus" of empty space push one up and the other down, as space is isotropic? It doesn't make sense.

In addition, the quantum collapse of the two-slit experiment implies the same "non-locality" when only one photon hits a screen with no apparatus except space, as follows:

"To Einstein, quantum collapse was absurd, as it implied faster than light travel. In his thought experiment a photon travels through a slit to hit a screen. Before it hits, the wave function says it could exist at points say A or B on the screen with some probability. After it hits, it is suddenly entirely at point A say, and not at point B at all. Now as the screen moves further away, the wave projection increases until eventually the A to B distance could be light years. Yet in quantum theory, the collapse is still immediate. The moment point A "knows" it is the particle, then B "knows" it is not, even if they are in different galaxies. The collapse decision is applied faster than the speed of light, which by special relativity is impossible for any known form of physical transmission." (from my Ch3, p16)

In contrast, the VR conjecture requires this non-locality, as a program acting upon a screen is always non-local to that screen. As you look at the screen to read this posting the program creating takes the same time to change any pixel - it has no screen limits. This of course is assuming that the physical world is an image on a screen, which is just a conjecture.

Your idea of a C field is remarkably similar to the idea of a grid. The main difference is that fields are presumed continuous while a grid is presumed discrete. You say that "superposition of states inherently does away with realism in favor of mysticism, claiming that quantum objects are 'ghostly' until measured".

I argue that it only does away with physical realism, but not realism per se. When you say we still do not know what a quantum field is I add "physically". We know what it is mathematically. If one defines postulating anything "beyond the physical" as "mystical", then both quantum theory and your C field are so already. The VR conjecture is just saying the same thing, but more bluntly, and without a "cover" of mathematics.

To me, logically, physics left the enclave of positivism long ago, when it embraced Faraday's idea of a field, which Feynman defines as follows:

"A real field is a mathematical function we use for avoiding the idea of action at a distance. " (Feynman, Leighton, & Sands, 1977) Vol. II, p15-7

We don't "see" fields, just their effects, and what is action at a distance but non-locality? I like fields, but lets be honest - they are not positivist "things" perceived directly.

So while "The physical fact is that a magnetic field can only measure along one axis at once", the quantum fact is that it can go both ways at once. This is why quantum computing operates quite differently from our physical computing.

This model is the testable theory that the physical world is virtual, i.e. has the properties of a processing output. What processing creates it can be derived by reverse engineering, if it is consistent. Other than that, how to describe it is open. So your C field could be a fine way to do that, and perhaps a better one, as it allows mathematics.

regards

Brian

Dear Tom,

There is no reason why it couldn't be, in theory. Indeed, as I say, it is THE case for physicalism, given the strange findings of quantum mechanics. Many respected physicists consider it the best option.

But science works by comparing alternatives and deciding the most likely, not by absolutely deciding "truth". So that it is not impossible is not the question, but rather whether it is likely. Here is a case from (Whitworth, 2010), p31:

"While initially ignored, physicists today prefer it (many worlds theory) three to one over the Copenhagen view (Tegmark & Wheeler, 2001) p6, despite its staggering overheads. Billions of galaxies of photons, electrons and quarks each making billions of choices a second for billions of years means the:

". . . universe of universes would be piling up at rates that transcend all concepts of infinitude." (Walker, 2000) p107.

Many worlds theory offends Occam's razor by assuming more than it explains. Deutsch's attempt to rescue it by letting a finite number of universes "repartition" after each choice just recovers the original problem, as what decides which universes are dropped?"

Is MWT just a theory designed to support a pre-existent bias that the world is an objective reality? Does it add any value, apart from that?

In contrast, in the VR conjecture, what is "copied" are quantum entities, like photons, or more correctly, their processing is distributed non-locally. This is a lot simpler than copying the entire universe every time a quantum event occurs!

regards,

Brian

Tegmark, M., & Wheeler, J. A. (2001). 100 Years of the Quantum. Scientific American, (Feb), p68-75.

Walker, E. H. (2000). The Physics of Consciousness. New York: Perseus Publishing.

Whitworth, B. (2010). The Light of Existence. Available at http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT3.pdf

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the link. I couldnt get it to work but accept the point as true. You are quite right - in gravitational lensing, photons from the same cosmic event can arrive on earth at very different times because they take different paths. But that doesn't "collapse" the idea that the grid keeps photons in lock-step order for a given path. Obviously, different length paths will take different times, as there are more transfers. Even different paths of the same length will take different times if the grid is loaded differently on each, e.g. if one path goes by a massive galaxy that stream of photons will be slowed down. This is of course also well explained by general relativity, essentially the same way, though it talks of space "curving" while in this model it is a limited amount of processing being shared between movement and other things.

kind regards

Brian

Hi Peter,

No problem. I think it is ok to speculate, as physics does it all the time, as long as the speculation is worked out in detail, generates some new knowledge value, and is logically consistent. We should all be free to speculate, e.g. Einstein was being consistent in saying that quantum theory implies no empty space, as if an electron's quantum wave can spread over a galaxy, how is its space "empty"?

In the VR model, empty space is entirely "full" of processing, whether it has a net output or not. A processing medium is a relative, non-physical "ether", whose output is physicality. It is as you say a discrete field - though it is just one, as you cannot logically have many grids. Its basic operation is electro-magnetism, and in an unfinished paper, gravity is the gradient of the same "field" that supports movement, i.e. SR and GR have the same origin.

kind regards

Brian

Hi Marcel,

No, I think anyone who claims to work in a scientific framework must do more than speculate, whether to produce a new logic of mathematics or new experimental data. This is the criticism of string theory, that it doesnt do this. So while this theory already accommodates a variety of past unexpected results, it must eventually predict an entirely new one.

And yes, it is difficult to go against our conditioning that the world we call physical is a self-existent reality. But then it was once equally self-evident that the sun went around the earth, so human frameworks can change, though it may take time.

kind regards

Brian

  • [deleted]

  • Post #24

You can use Einsteins dice dice programmed 1 ODD THROW 1 EVEN THROW= 2 ODD THROWS.

And 2 ODD THROWS 2 EVEN THROWS= 4 EVEN THROWS............

You can program a virtual universe where the paths of particles are determined by EInsteins dice.......

And compare this to the real world which is governed by random dice..................

Maybe you can make predictions about determinism in the real world.

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #25

Dear Brian,

I emphasize again that I find more to agree with in your hypothesis than to disagree. I expect, too, that MWT does not add value to a physical theory beyond the assumption that the world is objective (I don't know that the attribution can be verified, but I have heard Hawking quoted as saying the MW interpretation is "trivially true." I agree, whether he said it or not.)

Nevertheless, there is so much we don't know about the physics of consciousness that makes the assumption of an objective world nontrivial. I most certainly agree with you that consciousness is continuous ("... everything is 'knowing' everything else ...") yet there are physical theories and quantum theory interpretations in which this is also true. Gell-Mann spoke of it in _The Quark and the Jaguar_; Kefatos and Nadeau argued in The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory_ that the holistic universe is conscious in a real sense. And Bohm & Hiley _The Undivided Universe_ implied much the same.

And maybe this is nitpicking over terms, but when you characterize VR as a simulation, do you mean emulation? A simulation to me implies the virtual reproduction of a model that actually exists physically -- while the emulation of a program cannot at all be distinguished from the original. If all is virtual rather than physical, then there should be no way in principle to determine if the emulation we experience in our " ... dark cave of physicalism, with our backs to the quantum sunlight, watching a shadow world projected ..." is original, or the emulation of an emulation, of an emulation, etc.

Point is, I'd need more convincing that my assumption of an objective reality is superfluous. As it stands, I don't have to accept any reality _at all_ in order to do science -- the assumption of objective _language_ is sufficient -- which is why I prefer "metaphysical realism" (Popper) over your term "physicalism."

I for one would be an enthusiastic reader of a book-length treatment of your hypothesis. I'll check out your site -- thanks.

All best,

Tom

Hi Tom,

I am trying to work through this step by step, so will cover the points you raise in more detail in a later chapter. This is just my first thoughts, which may change.

The term emulation implies copying an original, as in emulating Windows on a Mac. As you say, simulating can mean the same, as in traffic model simulations. I use simulating in the sense of "The Sims" or Civilization, where a "world in itself" is created with its own space and time, that need not be a "realistic" copy of its containing world. Yet being contained, it must present on less dimensions than the parent, as we view 2D screen surfaces in our 3D space. This model just extends that, making our 3D space a "surface" of a 4D grid. If so, as you say, it may repeat, but science can only address whether this world is virtual or not, as that is all we know.

That science can theorize beyond the physical world but must validate from within it may be what Popper means by meta-physical realism. I have to check that. If so, the term refers to a method of modern science, while the term physicalism is a conclusion it might reach. If they are two different contexts, there is no contradiction.

Now extra dimensions in an objectively real world must somehow be within it, so string theory makes them "curled up", too tiny to see. Why a world should have such unseen and unusable dimensions is unclear. In contrast, a virtual world needs an extra dimension, making us the 3D version of Abbot's 2D Flatlanders, with an unseen dimension "sequestered" from us. Yet from a circle expanding and contracting in his world, Mr A. Square could conceive an unseeable "sphere", just as our complex number theory postulates an "imaginary" dimension beyond "real" space.

In practice, this doesn't make the physical world unreal or superfluous, which is nihilism. Indeed, it accepts that the physical world is the only reality we have, but just adds the postulate that it is real only within itself, i.e. locally real. That it has no inherent reality is implied by that it is virtual, or generated by processing. This is not a religious or philosophical view, though others may see it so, but just a logical implication of the VR model.

Also necessarily implied is that just as our simulations only exist if the programs creating them run, so the physical universe only exists if quantum programs creating it run. If the grid's processing were to at any time to stop, the physical world would, according to this model, instantly disappear as if it had never been. Clearly this is a different world view from the traditional one of a self-sufficient physical universe that created itself.

regards,

Brian Whitworth

  • [deleted]

  • Post #27

I've started reading your excellent essay and I feel later we will have an open fruitful discussion. Are our essays complementary? No answer is needed.

I will be back soon.

Good luck,

narsep (ioannis hadjidakis)

  • [deleted]

  • Post #28

Dear Brian,

Starting from your conclusions:

"Indeed, a world of objects that inherently exist is a concept flawed at its foundation. If a photon is

a mini-object with hidden parts, they need still finer parts, and so on. If every object contains smaller

objects, how can it ever end? That physical objects always arise from other physical objects is like the

earth being a disc on the back of a giant turtle. Just as that turtle would need another turtle to stand

upon, ad infinitum, so every object would need sub-objects to comprise it. A universe can no more be

"objects all the way down" than it can be "turtles all the way down". The existential buck has to stop

somewhere, and in this model, processing is it." :

What if the argument goes in circle assuming that beyond the quantum (smallest) quantity is the infinity (biggest)?

"By the logic of quantum theory, between our "real" observations is a quantum unreality of which

the Copenhagen doctrine says we must not speak. Yet as entities are in-between interactions more than

in them, the world exists mostly in uncollapsed quantum states. So by what logic are its brief moments

of collapse "real"? Surely reality is what exists most of the time?" :

An entity (SuE) is in a collapsed quantum state (pure real state) just for a moment the "time moment" that it is on time line (X=Y=Z); the time of perception (measurement). The same is true for the "time moment" when it is in its pure virtual state ΦX=ΦY=ΦZ . Hence, any entity is in its clear real or virtual state just for a "time moment" when it (the entity) is on its time line (extension of R or Φ, see Fig. 5 and 6 for 2D and Fig. 8 for 3D). At all other (infinity) time the entity is in a sum of stochastic states with continuously varying probabilities between the previous and the following collapsed quantum states. So reality is neither real neither virtual.

"Or if quantum waves predict and cause physical reality, isn't making a cause "unreal" and its

effect "real" backwards logic, like saying the sun circles the earth? If quantum states create physical

states, by what logic are they unreal? Surely reality is that which causes, not that which is caused49?" :

Reality is that which causes ONLY IF interaction is independent from what is caused. If this is not the case (interaction depends on the result through holographic virtual interconnection) then reality is that which causes PLUS that which is caused.

"... against evidence that quantum states are non-physical by nature and quantum collapse is non-physical by origin." :

Quantum states are "non-physical" by physical reality and quantum collapse is "non-physical" by virtual reality (both realities consist nature).

"It is to this place, that others avoid, the VR conjecture takes us, not to shock or amuse, but to

progress. We suppose ourselves in the rational sunlight of physical reality, standing before a dark cave

of quantum paradox, but in this model, as in Plato's cave analogy, it is the other way around." :

It is not like Plato's cave.

It is like we see with one eye to our front and the other eye to our back. The front eye sees the real reality and the back one sees the virtual reality. We can not perceive both realities at once although they are both existing in the present universe. We have the appropriate glass(es) for the front eye and we are search for the glass(es) for the back one.

Best regards,

narsep

    4 days later

    Hi Narsep,

    Sorry for the delay but was preparing for a US trip next week, to NJ. You raise some interesting points! Working from your statements:

    "An entity (SuE) is in a collapsed quantum state (pure real state) just for a moment the "time moment" that it is on time line (X=Y=Z); the time of perception (measurement). The same is true for the "time moment" when it is in its pure virtual state ΦX=ΦY=ΦZ . Hence, any entity is in its clear real or virtual state just for a "time moment" when it (the entity) is on its time line (extension of R or Φ, see Fig. 5 and 6 for 2D and Fig. 8 for 3D). At all other (infinity) time the entity is in a sum of stochastic states with continuously varying probabilities between the previous and the following collapsed quantum states. So reality is neither real neither virtual."

    That is a reasonable conclusion by the evidence. The VR conjecture just raises another possibility - that the uncollapsed quantum waves are the ongoing reality, and "physical reality" arises from fleeting information transfers between them as they "collide" and restart. If a "clear real ... state" only ever exists for an instant, by quantum theory, it acts like an event not an ongoing "state". So it could be an information transfer event. In VR theory, the physical world is entirely virtual, built only from events, with no "substance" in itself. This is not proposed to be "the answer", but an option current science needs to consider. It is not good enough to reject it based on a nineteenth doctrine (positivism) that was originally designed to combat the superstitions of the middle ages. Two centuries later, we should no longer fear a return to pre-science fallacies from the postulate that the physical world is not all that exists (though it is all we can know directly).

    "Reality is that which causes ONLY IF interaction is independent from what is caused. If this is not the case (interaction depends on the result through holographic virtual interconnection) then reality is that which causes PLUS that which is caused."

    Again, this is a possible interpretation, but not the only one. It is a dualist position, so has its problems, e.g. if quantum waves cause physical reality which then causes quantum waves, which came first, to start the interaction cycle off? Or if both exist in their own way, why is the quantum world so different? In particular, how can it do what cannot be done physically? Why have one set of rules for one world, the physical, but an entirely different set of rules for another, the quantum? Hence the VR conjecture suggests that non-dualism is simpler, and so by Occam's razor, preferred. It moves the focus of "reality" from the physical world to the quantum realm. It then must explain how a quantum world could create a physical one, which it does by suggesting that quantum processing creates a virtual physical world.

    "It is not like Plato's cave. It is like we see with one eye to our front and the other eye to our back. The front eye sees the real reality and the back one sees the virtual reality. We can not perceive both realities at once although they are both existing in the present universe. We have the appropriate glass(es) for the front eye and we are search for the glass(es) for the back one."

    This extension of the analogy raises interesting questions. Science tells us that we can only register the physical world by our senses, or as you say, the "first eye". Technical instruments like the telescope are then "glasses" to help the "eye" of the senses. If there is also a "back eye", that sees another world, how does that "eye" arise apart from the physical senses? What is it registering if not the physical world? What glasses could one apply to a non-physical eye making non-physical observations? I ask these questions in all seriousness.

    Finally, thanks again for raising your thoughtful points.

    kind regards

    Brian Whitworth

    • [deleted]

    • Post #30

    Hi Brian,

    I didn't intend a hiatus, as I find this dialogue very interesting and worthwhile. It's just that I've been down with bronchitis.

    Anyway, what Popper meant by metaphysical realism* is in contrast to the philosophy of Logical Positivism, which he opposed (and IMO, most successfully). LP (Carnap, et al) asserted that meaning is identical to language; i.e., that language analysis is sufficient to secure a completely closed judgment, and there is no meaning beyond what a statement contains of itself. Popper said, no, language is inadequate for a closed scientific judgment and no language analysis is rigorous enough, even in principle, to achieve identity between a representation and a physical result. In a certain sense, Popper applied Tarski's correspondence theory of truth to scientific method, so that method -- rather than representation -- drives objective knowledge.

    Why is this important? For one thing, it obviates any need for "physicalism" to support reality. A scientifically closed judgment of what is real need not be physical, but need only correspond to theory by measured result. So there isn't really a need to justify the "reality" of a virtual world; indeed, the hypothetical quantum process creating it may have stopped running billions of years ago, yet what would that say about our local physics? If we did disappear, the point of doing physics would disappear along with us. The value of the virtual world hypothesis, IMO, is in the possibility of creating virtual worlds of our own -- sustaining the program. And that's what I meant previously -- maybe it's already happened. Again and again, and ...

    Tom

    *Realims and the Aim of Science, Routledge 1983

    • [deleted]

    • Post #31

    Dear Brian,

    Starting from the end, the simple questions drive to fundamental answers if we take them seriously and I always take them seriously. When I refer to physical reality I mean the part of reality (real) that the front eye sees from the state we are (in space and/or time). The front eye sees the physical (real) reality of the observer, the back eye sees the virtual reality of the observer and both eyes together see the one natural reality at the present time. Furthermore, it is like we are sitting in a train with our sit direction looking to the back or we are walking backwards deciding our next step looking to the past and guessing for its result in the future. Our conception of reality differs between our eyes and not reality itself which remains one and inseparable. If we change position-state (in space and/or time) we will perceive another view through our both eyes. Even at the same time two observers (as they are at different positions in space) will have different natural reality's perception. Hence each observer has his own perception that change with time. However, physical laws are the same for all, at the same time.

    "What glasses could one apply to a non-physical eye making non-physical observations?": the glasses would be able to tackle virtual entities like EM field, resonance interactions, spiritual field and/or whatever that could correspond virtual entities to entities of physical reality.

    I am a little confused by your second paragraph. What is the physical difference between event and state (sorry I am just a chemist)?

    According to http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/state and http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/event?show=0&t=1295894421

    State: 1 a : mode or condition of being b (1) : condition of mind or temperament (2) : a condition of abnormal tension or excitement

    Event : 4 : the fundamental entity of observed physical reality represented by a point designated by three coordinates of place and one of time in the space-time continuum postulated by the theory of relativity

    5 : a subset of the possible outcomes of an experiment

    Presumably, by state you mean QT state (quantum superpositions) and by event the state we realize by the measurement action. In this case, my opinion is that at "pure real state" all physical reality can be measured by physical means (not virtual). In any other time part of the physical information is lost because it is expressed through virtual axis Φ. So the measurement action (if it happens) is an event but if no measurement happens "pure real state" remains a state. Referring to your fig. 2c, non-physical (virtual) reality could be part of natural (physical in your essay) reality. So by using your words "physical" and "non-physical" reality could be to different views of the same reality (is this dualism? or what?). "Or if both exist in their own way ..." they do not exist in their own way but they exist together in the same reality all the time. Virtual (quantum) reality is conceptualized by interaction's consequences (interaction = processing, by your words) while physical reality is conceptualized after measurement action (resulting to a "virtual" image if you like). Measurement action is like taking a photograph whose result is just an image of reality, in which a tiny part of it (reality) is included.

    I can not see the logic in your final sentence of your essay. Why reality must be fundamentally digital? (Did I miss something?)

    (have an enjoyable trip) Regards, narsepAttachment #1: answer_2.doc

    Brian,

    You agreed that the issue of localism is central, then said Bell's logic is not flawed. I didn't say his logic was flawed, only that it doesn't anticipate changes en route and thus changes en route will not imply either non-locality or non-reality. Then you define 'en route' as until either photon is involved in *any* physical event, but 'en route' should mean from source to detector. Bell's logic is based on detected events.

    You may or may not be correct when you say "That the spin outcome is probabilistic does not mean it is 'changing'." If it has a probability of being in a number of states, and if, according to Zeilinger's and others' interpretation of entanglement, properties don't exist until measured, change may or may not occur. Who knows?

    You then ask, "If the 'apparatus' causes hidden 'changes', why does it always change one up and the other down?" My 'realist' assumption is that conservation of properties (spin, energy) caused one to be created up and the other down. The apparatus does not always cause change, it depends on the specifics of the interactions involved. And as long as the apparatus does the same thing to both of the pair, there is no violation of Bell's Law. It is only when the apparatus does different things to each of the pair that they change differently and Bell's inequality is violated.

    I'm a little confused by the end of that paragraph, about 'empty space pushing one up and one down'. The realist's assumption of conservation of properties is that 'empty space' doesn't do anything to them. Makes sense to me.

    You then switch topic, or at least emphasis, so I'll address these differently.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Continuing my response to your response (2:28 Jan 14)

    Your two-slit experiment, based on the 'wave function collapsing' at point A or B is logical, but only if the 'wave function' is perceived as something real that collapses. The wave function in QM is probability, not real. The particle either hits A or B, with given probability. That's all that happens. Einstein was bright, but not always right. If, as I claim, the C-field "pilot wave" interferes with the mass surrounding the slit, then the interference arises at the slit, and the particle hits wherever it's going to hit. Because we can't (or at least haven't) taken the pilot wave into account, we are stuck with a probabilistic description. The description doesn't 'collapse'.

    I plan to treat your VR 'screen' in a later comment.

    You remark the C-field is "remarkably similar to the idea of a grid". The first sentences in my essay dispose of the idea that such is meaningful, since: "Steiglitz has shown the equivalence of time-invariant realizable analog filters and digital filters, so the theory of processing analog signals and the theory of processing digital signals are equivalent."

    You argue that "it only does away with physical realism, not realism; then seem to imply that mathematical description makes it "real". Then you claim that quantum field and the C-field are "beyond the physical". This is not so. The C-field has been measured in experiments; the quantum field has never been measured.

    I've posted on my thread and Ray Monroe's about this. I've got people saying the C-field (my name for gravito-magnetism) doesn't exist and others scolding me that everyone knows gravito-magnetism exists, and pointing to recent reviews. I don't know how to handle this except to say read the references. The 'existence' of the C-field is not really in question. What is in question is the 'strength' of the field, as recent experiments show it to be many orders of magnitude stronger than Maxwell assumed based on the simplest symmetry between Newton's and Coulomb's laws. My theory uses the stronger version of the C-field, based on experiment, not Maxwell's simple symmetrical considerations. The C-field is implied by General Relativity in the weak field approximation.

    Back to: "it only does away with physical realism, not realism" where you seem to imply that mathematical description makes it "real". I have long felt that the biggest conceptual problem in physics is the lack of appreciation of Korzybski's dictum: "The map is not the territory", expressed in his 'Science and Sanity'. I believe he identified understanding this concept as the basis of sanity. If I understand 'VR world' correctly, you are claiming that 'the map' is all we have, at least locally; the 'territory' is hidden in some other dimension. I doubt this dimension can be distinguished from God.

    In order to keep this thread focused on Bell's logic and related issues, I'll post my last response downstream.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Brian,

    In response to Tom you said: "Why a world should have such unseen and unusable dimensions is unclear", then you claimed a virtual world needs only one extra dimension; presumably on the basis of 'usefulness'. And your remark about complex number theory's "imaginary" dimension is misleading---complex numbers are simply 2D representations, as of course you know.

    I don't think I agree with you (or my hero, Feynman) that "a real field is a mathematical function we use to avoid the idea of action at a distance". Real fields appear to distribute energy over space. I don't believe that mathematics (the 'map') can accomplish this, only reality (the 'territory') can do this.

    Then you say you like fields, but they cannot be perceived directly. Forgive me for quoting my earlier fqxi essay, but I can't discuss direct perception any better than I did: (http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561)

    .

    "Upon what must a fundamental theory of physics be based? ...it should be formulated in terms of human reality, not abstract formulations. Either it is based on directly and immediately sensed reality or it is based on some abstraction that is claimed to represent reality. Current theories are based on physics abstractions such as:

    Gravity, String theories, Electromagnetics, Quantum field theories, Strong and weak forces, Dark matter and energy, Extra dimensions, Extra universes, Consciousness

    Of these, only two, gravity and consciousness, are immediately sensible and directly experienced by humans. I am directly aware of gravity and I am directly aware that I am conscious. I have no direct, immediate, awareness of any other physics on the list (with the exception of a small range of electromagnetic radiation). All other entities, if they exist, are sensed through the medium of some measurement apparatus (as complex as the Large Hadron Collider or as simple as iron filings in a magnetic field)-yet none is directly sensed. Even muscular detection of a magnetic field is possible only through the medium of a held magnet. Gravity and consciousness are directly sensible, requiring no external apparatus, and hence are deemed suitable for the basis of a physical theory that does not depend upon belief in either equipment or logical argument. We *know* these two entities exist. All else should depend on these."

    .

    Brian, you claim the VR model is a testable theory because "what processing creates it can be derived by reverse engineering." I'm older than you and my first logic design class (text: "The Logical Design of Digital Computers" by Montgomery Phister, 1958) argued that economics dictated a certain problem be solved by mechanical relay logic. I've designed with vacuum tubes, transistors, TTL-MSI, PALs, microprocessors, minicomputers and FPGA hardware, and written in Fortran, BASIC, PL-1, VisiCalc, JAVA, 8080, 8051, and 80386 assembly code, and many others, and I've designed multi-tasking incrementally compiling operating systems, ISDN connections to the internet, and much more, and I very sincerely doubt that reverse engineering the "processing output" to a meaningful, that is, architectural, level, is possible. My not so humble, but very knowledgeable, opinion. And if you can't reach the architectual level, then the VR model is more or less indistinguishable from God.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #35

      Dr. Whitworth,

      I do not comment as a physicist or mathematician so you may all ignore my comments freely. My pile was made higher and deeper long ago in Engineering but my life long study has been metaphysics. I feel that you did an admirable job of describing, and the logical reasons to view it as so, the world that we know as "around us" as Illusion. In present day terms arriving at the same result as Siddhartha Gautama and other metaphysicians did so many centuries ago: that this world is Illusion. In present day terminology, a virtual reality. I only find you to fail in not taking that step too far for today's academic world, in not stating the source to be Mind/Consciousness. I believe your essay to be truly Foundational! Hopefully my opinion won't count against you in this environment.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #36

        Hello Dr. Whitman,

        It is a pleasure to read your paper. However, I think it is premature to pursue the VR conjecture at this point in time.

        Most, if not all, physicists would agree that "The quantum world is in every way physically impossible, so physicality cannot be the nature of its reality." But what if Einstein was correct?

        In support of your VR conjecture, you give "Ten reasons to suspect that the physical world is a simulation." However, in my essay is a generalisation of the energy of a photon, which (even at this early stage) unambiguously refutes some of those reasons.

        Hence, it is premature to assert that "If science finds that it cannot be objectively real, it must explore if it is virtual."

        Kind regards,

        Robert

          Dear Eugene,

          Thanks for your comments which I am still thinking about. One point though. The VR conjecture is not a theory about God or one that requires a God to exist etc. It is a theory about this world that we see. The theory is that this world is created entirely by information processing, as an output. Its opposite theory is that this world is not created by anything else, but is objective, made of self-existing matter with permanent properties. The VR conjecture in contrast implies a world with the properties of an information simulation. These are considered in turn, e.g. that it began, that it has a maximum transfer rate, that "empty" space is not really empty, that its time and space are malleable, that "objects" can teleport, that the world is discrete at the lowest (Planck) level, etc, etc. and in each case our world is indeed like that. Conversely, I would argue that a world of solid "things" is impossible to reconcile with these findings, though you of course argue the opposite. Note that I encourage the latter and your C field work, where physicalism is a theory not an unexamined doctrine!

          That there is something outside the physical universe is a logical corollary of the VR conjecture, but it does not presume to define it, except to say that it can create processing, and need not be of the nature of what it outputs, i.e. it need not be "physical" . Who knows what it is? It could be God it could be a Big Machine. This is NMP (not my problem). I leave it to the theologists and philosophers.

          One could define a "God theory" as any one that references anything beyond the physical world we know by our senses, then by a classic circular argument say the VR Conjecture postulates God. Yet it is not true that to postulate something beyond what we see is to postulate God, e.g. Many Worlds Theory postulates things beyond what we can ever perceive, but it does not postulate God. Bostrom's simulation hypothesis also assumes something outside the simulation, but again it does not postulate a God. Likewise, VR theory does not postulate God even though it says the physical world is virtual. VR theory postulates that our world is information based, i.e. based on free choice, so fittingly lets the individual choose what to believe.

          all the best

          Brian

          Dear Brian,

          I'm happy that you take time to think about comments before replying.

          You say "The VR conjecture is not a theory about God or one that requires a God to exist etc."

          I agree. I was addressing your statement that "The theory is that this world is created entirely by information processing, as an output" combined with your hope to "reverse engineer" this output to decode the information processing architecture. Based upon my considerable hardware and software design experience I think the probability of success in such a venture is vanishingly likely. And if one proposes a theory of something outside of our local reality (in an 'extra' dimension not perceivable by us) that accounts in some unknown way for all that we see, then I find this indistinguishable from (not identical to) speculation about God. What is the difference between

          God creates everything that we see

          and

          Information processing creates everything that we see

          if there is no hope (as I contend) of discovering the architecture (of either) through reverse engineering.

          As for the "properties of an information simulation", I have not begun to comment on these [yet] because I am addressing the key points, which I see as Bell's inequality and the hope of reverse engineering a processor that is sufficiently complex to create the universe we perceive [including, I suppose, our very awareness] considered as process output from another dimension.

          I believe you are straying into the other arguments about this world ["The Evidence"] and I prefer to postpone these points. Your theory [conjecture] is of such magnitude and consequence [it essentially overthrows all physics] that I prefer to take it step by step. Otherwise we may lose all coherency in these comments, as is very often the case on other threads. Of course if I state things poorly you may simply be responding to what you think I said.

          Again, you say this extra dimension ["something outside the physical universe"] is not defined except to say that "it can create processing, and need not be of the nature of what it outputs." I'm sure that you must have some image of what you're saying, but to one not vested in this idea, it sounds no different from conjecturing: "God creates it."

          You say that Many Worlds postulates something beyond what we can ever perceive, but does not postulate God. I agree, but my point is that one might as well postulate God, since this is not physics. As a physicist, I am opposed to the claim that either God or the Multi-verse is part of physics.

          But, unlike the Multiverse, you have a back door, an escape route, in your claim that we can 'reverse engineer' the processor architecture from its output. I believe that I can design a counter example [I'm not offering to do so] that would use entirely different architectures [including analog, digital, and mechanical parts] that would provide identical output, thereby preventing even the possibility of such reverse engineering. Instead, for the moment, I'll just state that my professional opinion is that reverse engineering is not feasible, and almost certainly not possible. But that's just my opinion.

          So, working down the list, I see Bell's inequality and reverse engineering as the two most critical arguments.

          Finally, because you several times state that certain theories "go outside the universe" but do not postulate God, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not saying that you are postulating God. I am saying that, if reverse engineering is not possible, then you might as well be postulating God, because there would be no physical or logical testable difference between your theory and one that postulates God.

          I'm enjoying this because you really have identified the limits to some approaches and beliefs that are showing up in physics, to what I believe will be our detriment.

          By the way, I've posted on my thread [on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 00:46 GMT] a comparison of Verlinde's information-based approach to Newtonian gravity with my approach. You might find it interesting.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman