It, Bit, and Us by Dean Rickles

Re: Eddington and philosophy of science. Sometimes people claim that Wittgenstein never said anything about QM. Oh yes, he did.

"The views of modern physicists (Eddington) tally with mine completely, when they say that the signs in their equations no longer have 'meanings', and that physics cannot attain to such meanings but must stay put at the signs. But they don't see that these signs have meaning in as much as -- and only in as much as -- immediately observable phenomena (such as points of light) do or do not correspond to them.

"A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else: it is the reality. A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else which alone makes the proposition true or false: it itself is what verifies the proposition."

-- Philosophical Remarks, pp 282-3

Dean,

Excellent work! Very enjoyable.

It is a good way to describe the current view of quantum mechanics and/or trying to go beyond the limits. Bohr would probably say that photons are bits and if we try to make them into full-time its, we are taking photons out of their defined role. Switching to the electron - David Bohm would have suggested that there were undiscovered bits out there that might one day turn the electron into better defined its.

Where its, bits and us overlap or change roles is a fascinating topic. Shining photons on the outside of a photodetector will tell you where the detector is while the inside of the detector will tell you where the photons are. I think it was John Bell who used his eyeglasses as an observer/observed example (and it being a gray area) as he pulled them forward off of his head until he held them at arms length.

Quantum theory seems to say that we can't get a better fish net (to use your example) because the fish exist in a state that would prevent them from being captured in a smaller net - in fact the net we are using triggers them into a state that the net can trap.

What do you think - are we at the end of the measurement line?

Dear Dean,

I enjoyed very much your essay especially the fact that your title contains the Us, perhaps the Us is like the yellow light in the traffic lights that you mention, inbetween one state and the other, only there is no deterministic sequence in the follow up from the colours, the quote of John Wheeler on page 9 reminds me very much of my essay (Realities out of Total Simultaneity) where the mirror of our consciousness caused by our observations (orobouros) is also the cause of our observable universe. You say it is unlikely that intentional-system-centric notions would have counterparts in reality, independently of minds, I assume you mean our own minds not minds of other possible universes ?

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Dear Dean,

Multiverse or paralel universe "theorist" is the right word, because it can only be theory (untill now), but like all other theories it is a product of our minds, and becomes an hypothetical reality, if once we are able (perhaps with assistance of "a" future quantum computer) to create another consiousness and by coupling this consciuosness to our own, this new reality becomes an it, while the bits may be obeing total different physical laws, that cannot be tested by our instruments, this it can become a part of us.

Sorry I did not directly understand your phrase intentional etc , I fully agree with you.

thanks

Wilhelmus

It's from circa 1930, and probably refers to Eddington's earlier period. Eddington apparently found a sidebar career in the 1920s or at least a hobby (as did Feynman later) in amazing the public ... the "solidity" of a table, stuff like that. Some confusion resulted and LW seems to have wanted a reality check. Bohr's philosophical thinking was pretty much in process of formulation at that time, or at least not much had been published (I think).

The passage has an interesting resonance with Zeilinger's "A photon is a click in a photon counter." (We can overlook Mermin's retort about AZ being a click in an Anton counter.) Reality's what you can observe and correlate with your mental construction of the physical world. The rest is metaphysics.

Here's what W was referencing ("The Nature of the Physical World", 1928, Preface):

"Science aims at constructing a world which shall be symbolic of the world of commonplace experience. It is not at all necessary that every individual symbol that is used should represent something in common experience or even something explicable in terms of common experience. The man in the street is always making this demand for concrete explanation of the things referred to in science; but of necessity he must be disappointed. It is like our experience in learning to read. That which is written in a book is symbolic of a story in real life. The whole intention of the book is that ultimately a reader will identify some symbol, say BREAD, with one of the conceptions of familiar life. But it is mischievous to attempt such identifications prematurely, before the letters are strung into words and the words into sentences. The symbol A is not the counterpart of anything in familiar life."

Yes. But. You gotta have a phenomenon to have science. The photon counter's click. You don't see the photon make the click, but the click's all you need because only a photon could make it. And it's all you're going to get. The click is the observation which grounds the mathematical formalism and builds the bridge between abstract symbolism and physical world. You simply cannot do without it.

Wittgenstein was probably suggesting that Eddington wasn't a terribly astute epistemologist. Sometimes LW could be a jerk. One can have other beefs with Sir Arthur, though. You sense in a statement like "The stuff of the world is mind-stuff" and many of the words surrounding it one of the feeder streams into quantum mysticism and New Age bogosity. To be sure, he had no way of knowing that.

Hi Dean,

It's a delight to read an article so dense in meaning, and spoken with the authority of first rate scholarship.

So I'm just going to tease out a couple of things that I particularly relate to, and regret leaving so much unsaid.

In an early draft of my essay (right above yours in alphabetical order), I had devoted a whole paragraph to the digital-analog watch comparison. I edited it out, after a reader commented that even an analog watch generates digital information (which was actually the point I was trying, but failed, to make) -- the point that should have been made with the analogy is the one that you elegantly brought to bear: reality as a metaphor ... representing what?

Second, I'll pick an argument with Eddington, who is fortunately for me in this context, safely dead. You're right about the ultra-empiricism in your reference (4). The assumption that alien intelligence parallels our sensory experience and interpretation is not rationally justified. Einstein had the more rational view: " ... from the standpoint of epistemology it is more satisfying to have the mechanical properties of space completely determined by matter ..." and so hedging against metaphysical realism, rather important now that all our observations tell us that the universe contains very little matter. Pick a new epistemology to stand on. :-)

Good luck in the contest, and

All best,

Tom

Hello Dean,

Nice essay. As an artist, I personnaly relate to the old platonic forms the best and relate "reality" alot like that of Ellington. I view everything we see as a product of our "thought" and the objective universe as purely an imaginary construct.

If you get a chance check out my essay at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/893.

It isn't too philosophical but the inderpinnings and conclusions are very similar.

Dean,

Unless I misinterpreted your meaning, realism in the context of metaphysical realism does not obviate an objective world, it just ensures that we include "us." Information gathering machinery does only half the job; we are also information users, and knowledge is theory laden, not merely made of data.

Although Einstein was known to experience by his account a "kinesthetic" feeling that his theory imparted, that feeling was prior to the physics, and realized first in the abstract, in the mathematical completeness of relativiity -- certainly that is metaphysical realism at its best. (Personally, I feel the same about string theory; beauty, completeness and symmetry seem to come in a package.)

We do not experience spacetime directly -- all of our measurements are taken between mass points, not spacetime points, as Einstein (and Mach) recognized, in the attempt to have all the properties of space determined by matter. The field influences of the continuum turn out to be quasi-Euclidean, however, unbounded in space though finite in time -- and thus nearly flat, not what one would expect from a closed, isolated dynamical system. There is a large discrepancy between the baryonic matter we see, and that required for such closure.

So there's more to stucturing scientific theories than gathering data. Good theorizing could never survive on that principle -- the mathematical mess that still characterizes quantum mechanics is a good example of theory-after-the-fact. Einstein would still say: "It's so ugly."

Tom

Dear Dr. Rickles,

If philosophy is excluded from physics, then my essay is doomed from the start! I may as well be an L-plater competing in Sydney traffic!

Robert

Dear Dean

A really enjoyable read, thank you. Much food for thought, and definitely worth a good score. It also opened my eyes to something, that 'it from bit' is really also at the heart of the model on which my own essay is based, only via condensation of the basic ion (conceptual stem cell) particle can the continuum energy implement action, or change, which is matter/energy.

Did you consider the converse of your insight, that 'discrete' as well as digital has further representational connotations? Macro as well as micro relevance, in what is somewhat equivalent to a dynamic 'block universe'.

I'd be honoured if you find yourself able to read my essay as I do need help and advice. Even if highly falsifiable falsification can still prove impossible. I perceive an ability to think outside the box and explore consequences, which would be essential. I'd greatly value any comments.

Best of luck with your own essay, it has true depth and value.

Peter

Dear Dean Rickles,

Thanks for your smooth going essay based on insightful background.For me,it appears that you are a pessimist for the simple reason that the reality,according to you, is dual and cannot be reconciled.That is why you admit that digital is digital and analog is analog and they remain so forever.

But according to me that is not the case,for both digital and analog nature of reality can be reconciled on the basis of a much deeper concept.To know this,please,go thro' my essay and send your comments.

Good luck and best wishes.

Sreenath B N.

Dear Dr. Dean Rickles,

Welcome to essay contest. I found some errors in this essay:

The introduction of the essay is very doubtful. ''Is it digital or analogue''? - you'll never find an answer by analyzing a Rolex watch. First of all, to find an answer to fundamental questions we must be able to formulate correct questions. I can show you are wrong that ''at the root of the problem -''Is Reality Digital or Analog?'' -is the issue of representation''. The correct answer is ''At the root of the problem - ''Is Reality Digital or Analog?'' - is the nature of spacetime and matter. In this context, it is not surprising that the correct response was not found by the author, just because the questions are not formulated correctly. The author say: ''it seems perfectly possible for reality to be described by a dual system''. I can demonstrate you that any phenomena that look classical are approximate or derived; you cannot describe reality (for example spacetime) by a dual system.

To find the answer for main question you must analyze the fundamental structures as spacetime and Universe but not representations and Rolex watch: The Universe is expanding; In the first microseconds of expansion the Universe was very small and therefore finite in volume. In spite of expansion, the Universe will have the finite volume always. Since the Universe has a finite volume, it must have the edges (holes), because all objects with finite volumes have borders. And the space with holes is discontinuous. Thus, since the Universe is expanding, therefore it must be finite and discontinuous. (Also I can demonstrate it led to existence of fluctuating atoms.) Can you find flaws in this logical answer? Thus, the reality is fundamentally discontinuous, and therefore digital; therefore your main conclusion is wrong. If you have objections then please prove that my above arguments are wrong.

Your statement about the computational nature of the Universe contradicts quantum mechanics: please explain how this ''computer'' can process the motion of a particle and Heisenberg uncertainty. To process the motion of a particle it must know the absolute information about the position and momentum before the event occurs. The same error I found in the Tommaso Bolognesi essay.

You wrote: ''Before measurement by an observer, there is no physical reality: there is no such thing as a no phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon''. This statement is wrong; the age of the Universe is a proof that the Universe really has existed long before the appearance of humans (observers). The age of the Universe is a proof that Universe can exist without observers. You cannot quote Schrödinger here because his proposition has the totally different sense: You wrote:''The most perfect record, when not inspected, tells us nothing. It means only that we do not know about measurement, when not inspected. Thus, your above statement is erroneous.

You wrote:''Theories about the physical world inescapably bear our imprint; they are constructed to account for our experience''.

This proposition also is wrong; there are proofs that the physical world exist many billions of years whereas the age of humanity is less than some millions years.

You wrote:''Position measurements do not measure the position that a particle was existing at, but in some sense ''creates'' a correlation between a particle and a detector''.

It is a doubtful proposition; although a correlation between a particle and a detector can appear, we can find its position at measurement - Imagine a photon hits the detector (photographic paper).

Also I must mention that the essay appears to be original (not filled with copied information).

Regards,

Constantin

Great essay, dear mr. rickles. I shall have to peruse it once more to grok the majority. Time is getting short to make up the minds, no?

thank you.

?

and i remember your name from previous contests and threads and your body of work was a surprising revalation. honour to see you glimpse this.

only one question, what does this equation mean to you?

C=a(1-P)(1-D)(1-O)+b(1-P)D(1-O)+PDO

it means, for example: I wish I could go to Australia. Know anybody selling a decent ocean-going boat lol? seriously, mate...

it's just a dream, right. talk about the essay encouraginly. don't mention game-theory out loud.

the equation means to you and Julian Barbour for a high vote of confisence means???