Essay Abstract

When considering whether reality is fundamentally analog or digital, I can think of convincing arguments for each case, but feel that both answers are limiting, and that the fundamental nature of reality is far more interesting. I am firmly convinced reality is neither exclusively discrete nor solely continuous - as it must display both faces for either aspect to be manifested. The nature of reality is both analog and digital, rather than exclusively one or the other. Observable phenomena satisfy the constraints of both continuous and discrete natures at once. The attributes we observe appear discrete or continuous largely as a matter of choice. What information we choose to observe or preserve, and how we take in or process information, will affect what we see. Often the choice is automatic, as a single sub-atomic particle or atom acting as a localized observer can induce the appearance of classical variables and discrete entities, even though the global wavefunction remains coherent during local interactions. Nature is fundamentally unified however, regardless of all appearances, though any attempt to probe it finds discrete quanta of energy, information, and form. This paper proposes that reality is both analog and digital because nature finds the most effective or efficient means available to encode energy and information as observable form.

Author Bio

Jonathan is an aspiring Science writer, who has presented at international Physics conferences, and has lectured on a broad variety of Science related topics to mixed audiences. In addition, he has a number of papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals. He had dreams to become a scientist as a child, and did quite well in school, but with insufficient resources to pursue advanced degrees he found work in technical and engineering jobs instead. At the present time; Jonathan is again pursuing his childhood dream to be a scientist.

Download Essay PDF File

Hello again to all my FQXi friends,

It is an honor to again be an entrant in the essay contest. I've had too much to do, in my everyday life, so my submission was hastily finished up at the last minute, even though I started writing back in November. I had begun writing a section entitled "It computes, therefore it is," which is my adaptation of the famous quote from Descartes. But when 11 o'clock on the night of the 15th rolled around, I stopped writing so I could finish putting the References section to bed, and submit my paper.

As is often the case; some of the most interesting stuff was in the section I had to leave out, and my concluding paragraph became a single brief sentence. But there is lots of interesting content to discuss. I apologize to my readers who come to the end and say 'huh?.' My last-minute difficulties left me with insufficient time to do better. According to the NIST time web-site, I finally hit the submit button fewer than 3 minutes before midnight.

I include as attachments, a photo of zeilinger lecturing at FFP11, and two illustrations of quantum experiments.

Figure 1 shows feeble light striking a single half-silvered mirror. Photons coming from the light source will either strike the detector or hit the wall at A, but the time-reversed version would have photons at B - which are not observed. This shows that when we force the wavefunction to decohere, by causing the photons to behave as particles, we observe discrete nature.

Figure 2 shows the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, which preserves the wave-like aspect that drives quantum indeterminacy. When the wavefunction is allowed to remain in a coherent superposition of states, the wave-like aspect becomes the sole determiner of photon behavior - which results in only one detector (A, as I recall) receiving any photons at all. This demonstrates that the wave-like aspect creates or engenders 'quantumness.'

Hopefully; these inclusions will make my ideas easier to accept or understand.

All the Best,

Jonathan J. DickauAttachment #1: Figure1.gifAttachment #2: Figure2.gif

Hello yet again,

This post has the photo of Anton Zeilinger I mentioned above. I did not remember I'd get only two attachments per post. If I am not mistaken, the slide being projected behind him contains the mention of Professor Einstein's letter to the book's author.

Regards,

JonathanAttachment #1: AntonQuote.jpg

  • [deleted]

Jonathan, I'm glad you got your essay in on time so that you can be a part of this contest. Your essay is very well written, reading it was a pleasure. I like you comparison with the left/right nature of the brain which mimics the discrete/continuous nature of physics. This gives a very clear picture of what you are trying to say.

I have often thought about whether physics can be purely discrete at some level. It is an attractive idea but ultimately I agree with you (and many other authors here) that both are fundamental. A system of qubits embodies the duality because it describes discrete bits but with a continuous wave-function and continuous symmetries.

I think a wide range of people will appreciate your essay.

    Jonathan,

    I'm glad you made it! And I agree with much of your essay. We both start off looking for an explanation of a unified reality, that is, Nature is a unified whole.

    Having been closely associated with Zeilinger, it is not surprising that you are focused on the non-locality currently implied by 'entanglement'. Since you remarked that you've been very busy, I would like to make you aware of Joy Christian's approach to Bell's inequality.

    My selfish purpose is to note that locality may not be dead yet, and I have a local model that I believe is otherwise compatible with your approach.

    I also have mentioned Jill Bolte Taylor's exceptional book in other forums, as I view it as a major contribution to the literature of consciousness. In particular, I see her report as supporting the position that consciousness does not emerge from matter. If you take her seriously, and I do, it is hard to find a Darwinian 'survival'-based reason for the development of such universal awareness. In fact, this awareness, whether that of a new-born, a stroke victim, or an LSD trip, is probably 'anti-survival' as the awareness of the absolute unity of it all suppresses the separation into parts that is necessary to pay attention to the tiger creeping up on you. I express this as 'topological' awareness as opposed to the 'metric' awareness whereby we separate and map distances, so that we can pick the apple from the tree, but not waste the afternoon trying to pick the moon from the sky.

    There seems little appreciation in fqxi discussions of consciousness just how radically different these two modes of awareness are. The 'metric' mode has survival value and as we develop this mode of awareness in the first year or so of life, the 'experience of being one with the universe' is suppressed, until, finally, the best metric thinkers don't even believe in it's reality, although Abraham Maslow, in 'The Peak Experience' found that this awareness was not at all that uncommon among 'ordinary' people (non-physicists and non-mathematicians?)

    Anyway, I'm happy to see you treating these issues as relevant to physics.

    As you point out, "The act of observation is itself founded on the possibility of separation" although without the unified awareness this tends to lead to naive reductionism.

    I hope you can effect a 'willing suspension of disbelief' in non-locality long enough to read my essay with an open mind. I think we are very close in our goals.

    Best of luck in this contest,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Thanks Phil,

      I look forward to reading your essay. It is a pleasure being in the contest once again myself, and getting to interact with 'old' friends. Glad that you and I are likewise part of the 'both are fundamental' mind-set. It looks like a very well rounded field of entries, however.

      The best of luck to you!

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      Hello again Edwin Eugene,

      I am happy to see that you are also in the contest. I most certainly will suspend both belief and disbelief, while reading your paper. Sometimes the most fun can be had by taking your own work to task, but why bother when there are so many genuine experts who will vigorously defend their views here.

      I will also check out Joy Christian's alternative formulation.

      And I am thankful that you have also found Jill Taylor's book remarkable. It is definitely a little gem, full of practical wisdom as well as some excellent intellectual insights. My belief is that there must be some survival value to the right-brain's outlook, for laterality to develop, and that it bears further discussion.

      I have a paper pending publication, addressing this topic. But in the meanwhile; thanks for your kind observations and good wishes.

      Best of Luck to you!

      Jonathan

      Hello Jonathon, I liked the readability of your essay and the lack of complicated formulae. You write very well and it's nice to see someone from another discipline taking part. I have a simple idea which I've been spreading in order to bring attention to a very effective new idea. It's the visualisation of a GRAVITON being modelled by an Archimedes screw. Give this mechanical idea a chance. If it travelled around a wraparound universe then it re-emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. DARK ENERGY! It's too good to ignore for any longer imo. What do you think?

      Best of luck.

      Alan

        • [deleted]

        Hello,

        Do you think then that the law of excluded middle does not apply in the case of analog vs. digital reality? I would think such a denial would require a formal answer of some kind. Can we say that space is both analog and digital or both? Wouldn't any such claim throw most of our mathematics down the drain?

          Hello Alan,

          Thanks for your kind remarks. The Archimedes screw graviton is a new one on me. I once had the idea that an electron might be like the seam of a baseball, but one of my profs informed me that was probably erroneous, as it would give the electron a quadrupole moment which is not observed.

          Ergo; I would have to consider what the induced effects of your proposed model might be, before I pronounce it sound or unsound. On the other hand; it has been said that if one cannot explain something to a bartender - or at least to the average librarian - then one has not truly understood it.

          So I wish you the best of luck.

          Regards,

          Jonathan

          Thank you Albert,

          It is my observation that the first experimental disproofs of Aristotelian logic and the excluded middle principle appeared more than 100 years ago now. The excluded middle principle is only a law for some limited subset of real events, in any case.

          My everyday experience would suggest that the middle can hardly ever be completely excluded, and that people are over-eager to classify things as either/or decisions, when really it's a weighted average multiple choice question. And of course the idea of dialectical analysis is based on the idea that for each thesis and antithesis, there is a synthesis which includes common causes or elements of both opposing views.

          So I am not enamored of the view that excluded middle arguments apply in all cases, and I tend to become amused by this sort of extreme reductionism - when it is used inappropriately. Figure 1 in the above comment shows the either/or case of a beam splitter, while Figure 2 shows how in the Mach-Zehnder interferometer having both paths available allows a photon to maintain a coherent superposition of two choices.

          However; the outcome is not the same as adding the discrete contributions to the results for either one path. If that were the case, one would expect both detectors to light up half of the time. But instead, only one detector receives photons - when both paths are available. So; while the result is unambiguous - it is not what Aristotle would predict.

          I also attended a lecture by Marni Sheppeard at FFP10, where she was making compelling arguments for the utility of Ternary logic in Quantum Mechanics, using category theory as a basis. Another lecture at that same conference by Marc Lachieze-Rey showed how a lot of the Maths used in Physics could be derived from category-theoretic primitives.

          So I would also hesitate to agree that we would have to throw all of the great Math out. Only the derivation would change.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          • [deleted]

          Hi Jonathan,

          Welcome to the essay contest! I agree that reality must be comprised of both natures: discrete and continuous, in order for us to observe reality these ways. I agree with your description of the (possible?) Multiverse. I agree that any possible extra Universes must be discrete rather than a continuum smear, and I think that Scales (and possibly Lucas numbers) explain and demand this feature.

          I also liked your mention of the buckyball - it is one of my prefered geometries for the Black Hole "singularity", and the buckyball has some similar symmetries with Lisi's E8 Gosset lattice approach to a TOE. Also, two nested buckyballs have a smooth homotopy with a lattice-like near-torus that may model the "singularity" of a rotating Black Hole. I stare at my soccer ball on a regular basis. One of these days, I should get two identical soccer balls, cut them up, and reattach them into a torus...

          I enjoyed your comparison with the human brain. I guess that means that my left-side prefers a Bottom-Up approach to understanding reality, and my right-side prefers a Top-Down approach to understanding reality. My wife is an artist, and I always thought that she was more right-brained than left. It is funny how some of my abstract articulations of nature and mathematics look a little bit like art...

          I have fun working on both the Top-Down and Bottom-Up approaches, its the union in the middle that confuses me...

          Good Luck in the contest and Have Fun!

          Dr. Cosmic Ray

            Hi Jonathan,

            I very much enjoyed reading your paper. It's refreshingly different and highly readable. Thanks for your kind words over at my paper.

            Best Wishes,

            Willard Mittelman

              • [deleted]

              Hi, Jonathan

              I liked your essay, and there are infact many things that are common for both of us. You point to only a few basic things, but I try to link in more facts in my essay, /topic/938.

              In biology there exist many wievs of the lateralization,and that is the reason I am a bit cautious about talking too much of it. This example given by Jill Bolte Taylor shows however in a beautiful way onthe specialization of the hemispheres, shown also in their structure. This point, that function is seen in the structure is an important one. Histologically we have the Broadmans areas, that all are different structurally, thus also functionally,AND PHYSICALLY. This should be obvious to everyone.

              I like your analogy - 'surfing the wave'.I have used the same:) Thanks also for the links to quantum descreatness (Zeh),I have looked for those facts.

              I see the Nature as having different solutions for different kinds of matter or energy (Einsteins formula), but the material paths are split. Thus we get quantum 'matter' as waves and non-locality, classic matter as fixed waves mostly, that is particles, and living, reactive matter as intermediate, consisting of both classic, decoherent matter, and coherent quantum 'matter'.

              In theorethical physics of today the unique charachters of living matter should be recognized, so this highly interesting bransh of physics can be properly evolved. It can contribute much to the vision of what is our proper reality, and also in the hunt for the Higgs boson. Living matter is not just complexity and decoherence.

                Thanks for the consideration of the idea, you won't regret it I'm sure. As to the bartender analogy, I have a friend who works as a greenkeeper (Runty), and he's my sounding board for the man-in-the-street. Best of luck.

                Alan

                Thanks so much Ray!

                I still have to get to your essay. There are a bunch of good ones this time. Knowing your past work, your contest paper is likely to be a lot of fun to read, and promote deep thought at the same time.

                Yes; it's pretty much clear that in any multiverse scenario the congealing of a universe out of the quantum soup sets up wavefunction periodicities which span the islands of form.

                Thanks for Buckyball commendation, but I think it was Zeilinger's choice. A natural one though, as it has wavefunction periodicities too, and therefore a lot of 'quantumness' available to detect.

                I like the Buckyball/E8 connections. Way cool stuff!

                Bottom-up vs top-down is how the authors (MacNeilage, et al.) of the Scientific American article on the evolution of lateral brains describe the split. There is a lot to say on that one, however.

                Good luck to you!

                Jonathan

                Thank you Sir!

                It is a pleasure to be able to share my thoughts here. I look forward to reading your paper, and I'll be sure to share some thought on it too.

                Good luck!

                Jonathan

                Thanks so much Ulla,

                I greatly look forward to reading your paper. And I think you are right, that there will be many common ideas to highlight and discuss. I've read some of H. Dieter Zeh's papers several times now. I'm slowly developing some proficiency with the applicable Maths, and the wild idea of the pure form of decoherence theory is finally soaking in.

                When first I read the 2 Zeh papers I cited early on, I thought they were tongue in cheek exercises to show that the extreme case is workable. But correspondence with Zeh and Joos has strongly disabused me of this notion, and I am convinced instead that "discreteness is an illusion" is a core idea of their thesis.

                I must get on with things now, but I will leave some comments after reading your essay.

                The best of luck!

                Jonathan

                • [deleted]

                I think the discreateness is a result of entanglement. Classic matter would then be quantized waves or energies. This means the matter is regulated from entanglement, and the matter itself is an illusion:)

                There should be much more discussion on the quantization and the descreateness. After all 'all the physics is seen in the double slit experiment'?

                Ulla.

                • [deleted]

                HIHIHI Jonathan in fact you like all, it is that, a real gentlemen..it is well, lol ...and of course dear thinkers(Ray and you)forget these supidities of multiverses and otehrs computing pseudos ideas.

                Similarities yes of course and of course a string is a sphere, the extradim are spheres and the multispheres also ....it is that the strategy.....pseudos similarities.Please are you real rationalists or what ???? what are your books, really I ask me if you make sciences sometimes.I am frank, all that becomes ironic.

                You bad superimpose dear friends, really. it is incredibly incredible to see these extrapolations, it is not a lack of knowledges, no a lack of generality simply.Skillings but lost in an ocean of confusions.

                Regards

                Steve