Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for the comments.

With the phrase "intentional-system-centric" I was just trying to avoid a particularly bad version of the anthropic principle (where there is something explanatorily special about humans in particular), extending from minds to intentional systems more generally (with "intentionality" understood along the lines of this article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/).

If one is a multiverse theorist, and thinks there might be such intentional systems (capable of modelling or representing reality and testing their models) in some of these other universes, then what I said will naturally apply to them too. Though I'm not sure I see the relevance of multiverse issues here?

Best,

Dean

Thanks Chris.

I like this idea: "in fact the net we are using triggers them into a state that the net can trap." It sounds a little like some of the things Rudolph Haag says, who's work on the ontology of QFT has influenced me quite a lot (see, e.g., the final bits of his book on Local Quantum Physics).

Best,

Dean

Nikman,

Interesting quote (though rather cryptic, as usual).

I'm not sure which view of Eddington's he is referring to here? It doesn't sound anything like Eddington's philosophy of science (perhaps Wittgenstein should have really used Bohr's name here?). Philosophically, first passage sounds much more like Carnap's protocol-language idea (or maybe some of Neurath's ideas) to me; the second sounds like a very extreme-idealism (and again, a bit like Bohr!)).

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Best,

Dean

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #35

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.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #36

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.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #37

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

    4 days later

    Thanks for the comments.

    On the Eddington point you make - I don't think Eddington makes the assumption you charge him with (at least, I think that's what you were saying). He simply argues that if some other intelligence were to 'have access' to our knowledge gathering machinery (our system of sensations), then they would 'have access' to our science. This is a tricky way of speaking, but the point is that, for Eddington, sensations have a group structure that is isomorphic to that that found in the physical universe described by scientific theories.

    On the Einstein point, remember that the geometrical properties of spacetime are only determined up to diffeomorphism - I'm not sure what observations you are referring to, that show us there is very little matter: surely we think in terms of fields which are standardly defined at all points?

    Best,

    Dean

    • [deleted]

    • Post #39

    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.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #40

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #41

    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.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #44

    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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #46

      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???

      Dear Constantin,

      You are right about two things: the Schrodinger quote is out of place (I thought I removed it, in fact), and the essay has not been copied!

      Your other points are not arguments so much as statements to the contrary.

      Digital and analogue do not map directly onto discrete and continuous. I give arguments showing this in the paper, that you have ignored. You seem to have it in your head that the question MUST be about the discrete nature of spacetime. But that is just one way to pursue it - and the many essays by people with good brains on topics beyond that should give you some pause for thought that maybe it has a wider reach. My whole aim was to formulate the question ultra-precisely and go beyond the superficial "nature of spacetime and matter" approach (I even explicitly discuss this at the beginning of the essay).

      The Rolex/Casio example was a metaphor. And, I think I may know why you have such trouble with the more 'chatty' essays, and that is their playfulness with language. You seem to get stuck on metaphors. This is understandable since you are not a native English speaker. The Rolex example was intended to pump intuitions ready for the rest of the essay: watches are not supposed to directly grasp some entity in the world, they are full of conventions, and we can use both digital and analogue depending on our needs. Being able to use either does not imply the discreteness or continuity of the thing that is being represented (and, as I also note, there might not be a thing in the world that is being represented - instead, it might be some conventional setup).

      I didn't make a statement about the computational nature of the Universe (at least not one that I was defending). I'm no sure what you mean by this.

      You write: "the age of the Universe is a proof that the Universe really has existed long before the appearance of humans" . Yes, Bell made a similar remark against the Copenhagen interpretation, and interpretations that privilege conscious beings. I'm NOT privileging conscious beings. Again, I was careful to distance myself from such claims in the paper. I'm saying that our THEORIES are the way they are, and select the things they select, because of the way we are. That doesn't mean they are unique or that that "reality" didn't exist until theories were constructed to describe. But I will say that "Universe" (and the notion of "age") is a theoretical term like any other, and the way we think it ought to be best described has altered over time like many other theoretical terms. As John Wheeler put it: "Never run after a bus or woman or cosmological theory, because there'll always be another one in a few minutes"

      To repeat: that our theories bear our imprint does not imply that there was no existence before we started making them! You are confusing a representation with what it is supposed to represent. I think I made this point better in my response to Dr. Klingman's post from the 17th Feb. Please read that if you are not happy with this response.

      Incidentally, you clearly read everything (with the exception of your own writings) to find flaws, and nothing more. A completely flawless essay would, in my opinion, be as boring as a completely mechanical piano performance. This competition (and FQXi in general) enables risk-taking. It's also fun. Why shouldn't thinking about the universe be fun?

      One remark on your ideas about holes and discontinuity: does being discontinuous somewhere imply discontinuity everywhere? In any case, you don't really give enough details on your own argument to be able to show it to be right or wrong. From what you have written above, I don't know why you need to discuss expansion and finiteness of the universe: all you need is one black hole singularity.

      Best,

      Dean

      Please disregard my threads. I have learned a painfull lesson in my own thread that less is more, when actually participating in the contest.

      And the threads are a whole lot more fun then.

      No need to pile on in my opinioun. But I am in the minority. Look forward to seeing how this all pans out. Before the stress turns me off the whole enterprise...

      Thanks again for your essay.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #49

      Dear Dr. Dean Rickles,

      I found little errors in your essay because it does not contain the original physics research - it is a philosophical paper. It is generally known that philosophers are able to escape from any situation and it is very hard to look for errors in a philosophical paper. For example I found the erroneous propositions ''about the computational nature of the universe'', but you replied that ''I didn't make a statement about the computational nature of the Universe''. However, I don't see a link to references near this proposition, consequently it is YOUR OUN statement. By definition, all text without links to references is considered to be the author' intellectual property. According to author's rights, it is your statement. Moreover, you have the big text below about informational-computational nature of reality: ''all things physical are information-theoretic in origin'', ''Konrad Zuse is perhaps the first to apply digital computation to ontology, arguing that the universe is itself a giant finite-state automaton''. I do not see your criticism about this Zuse' statement, it means you agree with Zuse. In this context, now you have two options; 1) please explain how the computational Universe can process the Heisenberg Uncertainty; 2) If you cannot explain it, consequently I found another error in your essay. In the same way I can prove that all the rest of my notes are real errors in your essay.

      However, since you say that ''A completely flawless essay would, in my opinion, be as boring as a completely mechanical piano performance. This competition (and FQXi in general) enables risk-taking'', then we'll look for another way. There are a lot of essays, how can we evaluate them? 1) The best essay must have the best original ideas. 2) The best essay must be able to prove if the reality in the better way; From this point of view, I see neither novel ideas nor original research nor proofs about reality in your essay; I don't see any investigation of the nature of spacetime, it is a philosophical speculation only about the issue of representation, It and Bit.

      I can show you that your main conclusion is wrong: ''both are possible, and it seems perfectly possible for reality to be described by a dual system''. Can you describe the motion of free particle by a dual system? The ''motion'' of a particle is not continuous and not analog because its position is uncertain. In double slit experiment, the particle can fly through both slits at once, and such behavior cannot be described by your dual system. The reality is fundamentally quantum, digital and discontinuous but not analogue.

      Thus, since your main conclusion is wrong, therefore your essay is totally wrong.

      Regards,

      Constantin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #50

      Dear Constantin,

      You claim: "I do not see your criticism about this Zuse' statement, it means you agree with Zuse."

      No. It really doesn't mean that. It's within a section REVIEWING the history of the question. I don't think that the Universe is a giant computer. i don't say it is. The rest of the essay should blatantly show that I don't believe such a thing.

      Also, philosophical essays (and non-scientific essays) CAN be wrong. This notion is simply a myth.

      You still seem to be stuck on the idea that this question must about the nature of spacetime. Again, without argument. Stating your opinion over and over again is not an argument. If you simply repeat yourself like this again, there's no point in my responding. In fact, I've noticed you do the same thing in other's posts, ignoring their careful responses and stubbornly persisting with your same erroneous presumptions.

      The essay competition has its OWN evaluation criteria: relevance and interest. You might look at these since it also shows that the essay organizers are well aware that the question goes beyond issues of spacetime.

      Finally, I DON'T say the universe IS a dual system. The whole point of my essay is that there is a gap between digital/analogue representations and underlying reality, and that what we have to go on are discrete measurement results. The world's being a dual system is NOT my conclusion.

      Again, perhaps there's a language comprehension issue here?

      Best,

      Dean