Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

genies alan: on 5/18/17 at 4:45am UTC, wrote obat asam lambung toko obat qnc jelly gamat

genies alan: on 5/18/17 at 4:43am UTC, wrote In the middle of the journey of our life I came to myself within a dark...

amrit: on 1/22/16 at 20:08pm UTC, wrote Which is inertial mass of Higgs boson? Idea that Higgs boson is giving...

NARSEP: on 1/9/16 at 8:48am UTC, wrote Why it reminds me Gödel’s incompleteness principles? I was surprised...

Nicholas Hosein: on 12/13/15 at 21:29pm UTC, wrote "too many times is God absent" In actuality he is nowhere absent. S is...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/27/15 at 21:23pm UTC, wrote if the quantuminformaions are correlated with the principle of entropy ,so...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/27/15 at 21:07pm UTC, wrote hello, a set of laws ok If and only if the laws are deterministic and...

David Wolpert: on 10/27/15 at 20:44pm UTC, wrote Hi Quentin, >>> Does he differentiate between conceptual...



FQXi FORUM
June 24, 2017

ARTICLE: Inferring the Limits on Reality (that Even the Gods Must Obey) [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 30, 2015 @ 14:33 GMT
It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two real snowflakes are identical, and as all of the laws of the universe must be consistent throughout; this means that no two quanta can be identical either. As no two quanta can be identical, all abstract information concerning their utility is utter codswallop.

Joe Fisher

post approved


Neil Bates wrote on Jun. 30, 2015 @ 20:02 GMT
Fascinating. Another important part of quantum mechanics is the Born Rule. This is not the MOST relevant possible thread to make my point, but I do also want to test formatting (whether character versions of subscripts and superscripts will show up as such, rather than format commands.) The Born Rule in quantum mechanics states that probability of detection of a particle etc. is proportional to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 1, 2015 @ 04:45 GMT
I dislike Wolpert's tongue in cheek. It reminds me of someone who tried to catch attention with the words "I am God. I don't exist".

Nonetheless, I see the addressed topic related to the usual but questionable use of the notion number as well as to an Einstein's still mandatory in physics denial of the distinction between past and future.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 4, 2015 @ 13:59 GMT
It is easy to demonstrate that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is merely the limiting case of the Shannon Capacity Theorem, for information content: it corresponds to a measurement that contains only a single bit of information.

The Shannon Capacity can be stated as:

The total amount of information contained in a series of measurements, of finite duration, can never exceed the number of bits required to digitize (and perfectly reconstruct, down to the noise level) the band-limited input signal being measured:

(number of bits of information)

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 4, 2015 @ 14:04 GMT
For some reason, the end of my previous post was cut off.

I'll try posting it again:

It is easy to demonstrate that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is merely the limiting case of the Shannon Capacity Theorem, for information content: it corresponds to a measurement that contains only a single bit of information.

The Shannon Capacity can be stated as:

The total amount of information contained in a series of measurements, of finite duration, can never exceed the number of bits required to digitize (and perfectly reconstruct, down to the noise level) the band-limited input signal being measured:

(number of bits of information)

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 4, 2015 @ 14:06 GMT
For some reason, the end of my previous post was cut off again. I'll try posting it again:

It is easy to demonstrate that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is merely the limiting case of the Shannon Capacity Theorem, for information content: it corresponds to a measurement that contains only a single bit of information.

The Shannon Capacity can be stated as:

The total amount of information contained in a series of measurements, of finite duration, can never exceed the number of bits required to digitize (and perfectly reconstruct, down to the noise level) the band-limited input signal being measured:

(number of bits of information) is less than or equal to (number of samples)(number of bits per sample)

The limiting case is when there is only one independent sample, with only a single, possible, significant bit (limited by the signal-to-noise ratio), hence, one bit of information.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 4, 2015 @ 14:11 GMT
The post problem in the previous posts, seems to be that the system interpreted the mathematical symbol for "less than", followed by the symbol for "equal", as a command to end the post. So I replaced the symbols with words.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas Hosein wrote on Jul. 15, 2015 @ 21:55 GMT
Reality combines information on itself, making it perceptually unified and objective. In order for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to work, there must be information that is excluded from reality at one moment in time and then "collapses" the next, transforming the unreal into the real. However, this is speaking colloquially, since reality is more than the sum of its perceptions and the information gained or yielded by them. Each inference device, such as humans, gods, or intelligent observational machines, moving forward each moment in time, must actually be conscious of the information contained in the others' mind in order to predict what that conscious entity will do. So information plays a fundamental role in determining reality or the state of the universe. Wheeler understood this and posited an "observer-participant universe".

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 17, 2015 @ 14:55 GMT
Claude Shannon understood it long before Wheeler. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be simply derived from Shannon's Capacity theorem, by considering the minimum possible amount of information (one bit) that can ever be extracted from a measurement; it corresponds to a single, independent, measurement "sample', with a single significant bit. It has nothing to do with any "collapse", nor is consciousness required. But you are correct in that information acquisition, is dependent upon a priori knowledge.

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas Hosein wrote on Jul. 17, 2015 @ 21:14 GMT
A priori knowledge is knowledge gained by reasoning and reasoning, as Kant noted, yields theoretical knowledge, which, if successful, is reality.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 17, 2015 @ 23:09 GMT
A virus entering your body, has a priori knowledge concerning how to infiltrate your cells. It did not obtain that knowledge by reasoning, or any other process known to Kant.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 18, 2015 @ 08:36 GMT
If I may say, down the road it is easy to mistake chance for design. To credit a virus with a priori knowledge when it was only lucky to be one out of a billion to infiltrate a cell.

Starting out, billions are released from a sneeze, some are blown away by the wind, some are inhaled, millions may find their way to the doorstep of a cell but only a small amount enter. And even many of this small amount wander about aimlessly or get arrested by the cell police, then a very tiny few get to multiply and cause illness. It is these few that get credited down the road with a priori knowledge whereas they have no idea whatsoever what they are doing.

In summary, what looks at the end of the chain like something designed to be so, may merely be the outcome of chance.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 18, 2015 @ 14:34 GMT
You are confusing causes and effects. A virus contains genetic information - a priori knowledge about how to behave, given an opportunity to behave. How that came to be, by chance, by design, or some other mechanism, is irrelevant. The knowledge exists within the virus before (a priori) its arrival near a cell. Consequently, it does not have to rely upon trial-and-error (chance), in order to infiltrate a cell.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jul. 21, 2015 @ 09:36 GMT
One must first ask the right questions?..can a three-dimensional particle, transmute to a two-dimensional space, still exist as an observable? Just as an observable god A,within a Universe, cannot be sure of an un-observable god B external to the observable Universe A?

2-Dimensional Quantum Mechanics, exist, (unobservable), within 3-dimensional Relative space-times. XYZ becomes XY-YZ-XZ..ETC..ETC, QM loses a factor of observation..or information loss?

You cannot expect to make a measuring device, if the devise itself loses an observational contributing factor?

Can you really infer 3-D bits, can exist within 2-D waves?

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas Hosein wrote on Jul. 24, 2015 @ 19:08 GMT
Information equates to mind, which equates to reality.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jul. 28, 2015 @ 04:36 GMT
EINSTEIN ON SLD

There is a possibility Einstein was using LSD because he “invented” many concept which still today are heavy burden on physics. Let’s see most influencing one:

- coordinate time

-proper time

-time dilatation

-space-time (where time is a 4th dimension of space)

-constancy of light speed

-length contraction

-internal observer

-external observer

-empty space

-graviton.

attachments: Einstein_on_SLD.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Jul. 28, 2015 @ 21:14 GMT
I'm thinking that the time line might contradict your hypothesis. SR dates to 1905. GR dates to 1915. According to Wikipedia, LSD was synthesized is 1938. Its psycho-active properties were discovered in 1943. Of course, a variation occurs naturally as a rye fungus.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jul. 29, 2015 @ 14:24 GMT
Gary,

You are correct. More then that, the much publicized hype about the psychedelic era is largely a fabrication of sensationalism which is wholly ignorant of the realities, and of drug usage and their effects. The 'hippies' were a diverse mixture of competing conceptual movements which developed in the era of blossoming progressive intellectualism that was truthfully in response to the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 8, 2015 @ 14:03 GMT
It is intresting dear John .Apparently you like the canabis you lol :)

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jul. 30, 2015 @ 10:03 GMT
Amrit..take a look at Picasso's early work prior to 1909 ?..not a hint of cubism..then he discovers Einsteins work, which alters his perception of 3-D dimensional space, or perspective, probably the only mind altering substance in that era..was probably Einsteins work? :)

report post as inappropriate


Jan Mazuch wrote on Jul. 30, 2015 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear David Wolpert ,

As you said:

Inference devices are physical machines that obey the normal rules of mathematics and logic. The only a priori restriction on them is that they exist in the same physical universe as the system they want to know about.

/PS this metarules field or metauniverse is mentioned by Laura Mersini, ask her /

So if:

It is proved that it’s impossible for one inference device (device A) to both know its own answer to an arbitrary question and to also know the answer to the same question by a different inference device B

My point:

This show up one practical questions if I need to run universe, i need to have best possible Control and knowledge from inside and outside.

I am creator, I know that can not be perfect for 100 percent but with high probability. High probability means good control or feedback to my management

then my universe is stable, and all my ideas are transformed to real one well

Best possible means avoid interference at all, minimise to total minimum of interference, means interference device probably is not controling, measuring every state just measuring, controling underlying laws.

Questions:

Are we living in universe constructed best possible to be controlled, measured and predicted by interference device ?

Thanks

Jan

report post as inappropriate

Member David Wolpert replied on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 20:39 GMT
Jan Mazuch wrote on Jul. 30, 2015 @ 21:24 GMT wrote:

>>>

Are we living in universe constructed best possible to be controlled,

measured and predicted by inference device ?

>>>

That is a fascinating way of framing things. My project has been to

try to find bounds on the best-possible performance of inference

devices, to then see how they relate to the actual bounds in our

universe. Ad you point out, there is then a leap to say that our

universe actually achieves those bounds.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 8, 2015 @ 14:09 GMT
Hello Mr Wolpert,

it seems surprising that a lot of people (even skilling ) does not really understand the ENTROPY AND ITS spherisation ...NO?

It is the same with the relativity, general and special in fact.

What a world dear friends, what a world....

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Michael Brown wrote on Aug. 27, 2015 @ 17:23 GMT
I find this comment to be quite strange:

But even a monotheistic God may have to accept some limitations when it comes to such information. With his tongue back in his cheek, Wolpert says that God can get the universe rolling, but can’t interfere with its functioning afterwards. "Or, after someone else gets the universe going, you can interfere, but you can’t do both," says Wolpert. Deism is allowed, he says, but not the traditional Abrahamic God.

The Abrahamic God is self existent, self aware, all knowing and created the universe ex nihilo i.e. He transcends it and is external to it. This does not exclude His interaction with it, His knowledge of it or His ability to determine the course of future events. This research simply validates

Isaiah 55: 8-9 which states:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”

declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

It is heartening to me that modern physics is starting to recognize the fundamental limitations of humanity. We can never be Devine, but we can partake of the Devine nature through relationship with His dear Son.

Blessings

Mike.

report post as inappropriate

George Humphrey replied on Aug. 28, 2015 @ 11:03 GMT
Mike. You have missed something very basic.

An Omniscient God never needs to interact with the Universe after he creates it. An omniscient God sets up all their miracles in advance by building them into the Universe at the instant of its creation.

Only a lesser God would need to keep "messing with it" after he started it.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 3, 2015 @ 18:48 GMT
It exists ind eed one God, and the project of God is to create a beautiful sphere in spherisation so in improvement, we create the paradise dear friends and the death does not exist because all continues the road of the spherisation, we encode the essentials dear friends and we are still Young at the universal scale, 13.6 billions years ,it is still a Young universal sphere, so the errors shall disappear and the eternity is for the future , in the present also in a pure philosophical point of vue.

God , the Creator of Sphere by sphères with sphères, they turn so they are ....

SPHERISATION dear friends and the Big Bang is from the central main sphere ,the central black sphere.

God is everywhere dear friends and the universal love is the only thing which exists for all times

spherically yours

report post as inappropriate


quentin wrote on Sep. 15, 2015 @ 08:27 GMT
"The work has implications for our ability to come up with the kind of theory of everything that Wolpert longed for as a graduate student"

Does he differentiate between conceptual knowledge, knowledge of laws and factual knowledge? Or does he assume that knowledge of laws boils down to factual regularities (or perhaps some "best system analysis")?

In anycase one must have concepts before being able to apreciate facts. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that the whole view rests on the idea that there are pure, given facts (" information") directly perceived by cognitive systems, independent from conceptual schemes. Careful philosophical thinking has proven this idea wrong some time ago (see for example Sellars' "myth of the given", or Quine, or Davinson...).

For example "knowing the state of the universe" is not the same thing in newtonian physics and in relativity (because the state-space is of a different structure) So either we assume the devices have a built-in conceptual scheme (state-space), or it's unclear what "information" really means.

report post as inappropriate

Member David Wolpert replied on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 20:44 GMT
Hi Quentin,

>>>

Does he differentiate between conceptual knowledge, knowledge of laws and factual knowledge? Or does he assume that knowledge of laws boils down to factual regularities (or perhaps some "best system analysis")?

>>>

That is a very important point. The inference device formalism only concerns "factual knowledge". So in the context of a universe comprising physical events, it concerns those physical events.

However rather than represent reality as a set of events, we could represent it as a set of laws. If we do that, then the analysis concerns "knowledge of laws".

Cheers,

David

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 21:07 GMT
hello,

a set of laws ok If and only if the laws are deterministic and realsitic respecting the empirism and our foundamentals.It is essential ,if not it is just spéculations.It exists indeed a specific road of encodings of evolution.

A set of events must be Under the universallaws of encoding of bosonic informations and gravitonic.Main codes are gravitational for the serie of uniqueness, the others are by complementarity of adaptation of evolution.The superimposings and sortings are Under the laws of this gravitation.The aether is gravitational and don't affetc photons.The formalism must in logic respect these essentials.If this entropy creates a physicality, it is from the central cosmological sphere,the biggest BH where comesfrom the BB.This singularity has all created and continues with the gravitational waves and gravions produced to act in a pure instantaneity.Spiritually it is fascinating.It exists two kind of gravitational informations,the quantum uniqueness and its codes and the linear gravitons encoded in this uniqueness quantum serie.The knowledge of laws are far of us but we appraoch alldays.God is everywhere dear scientists ,the spherisation shows us the road of imrpovement on the Arrow of time.We encode, we evolve, we increase in mass energy .We are babies ofthisentropy, thiscentral sphere connected with allthe other quantum singularities, the centralquantum sphères.It is fascinating indeed.The formalism is spherical and in 3D.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 21:23 GMT
if the quantuminformaions are correlated with the principle of entropy ,so it is essential to consider that we are stillat the step of electromagneism and electricity.We cannot still work with gravitational informations,linear.So entropy must be relative,it is important.The entire entropy cannot be reached in this line ofreasoning.That said it is a fractal simply of a virtual artificiial entropy.It islogic in fat.If we take the shanon entropy, it is an entropy about the quantity of information correlated with electric signaLs,it is a proof of its quantification electromagnetic.The source so is essential.If we consider gravitational entropy ,it is different and can be correlated with gravitonic informations .The same logic is possible but with volumes different simply.Can we correlate with the computing ,I don't know if it is possible withthese gravitational informations instead of electromagneic informations.

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas Hosein wrote on Dec. 13, 2015 @ 21:29 GMT
"too many times is God absent"

In actuality he is nowhere absent. S is distributed over S. This is how the self is S, and since nowhere is S absent, He must be in me. And He is therefore "I" as spirit and non-"I", or "God" and non-"God" merged to become the one that distributes over the one. Reality being defined according to God. As I already explained, evil does not exist, it is the absence of God in man's hearts, God is love, consciousness, and good, therefore a flicker of that candle in the dark can illuminate and destroy what is false/concept/ false concept/object/actual lies and/or misunderstandings of reality. And even in this misunderstanding, can I be aware now of that. Forgive my misunderstanding, but you are not "God" if you are evil, as God is the light in your darkness that illuminates you and reveals himself that is one self. I am that light which shines in darkness. I am the love that fills the coldest heart. I am the goodness that transcends all "evil:' I am the one who is not separate from everything and everyone.

Who are you?

report post as inappropriate


NARSEP wrote on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 08:48 GMT
Why it reminds me Gödel’s incompleteness principles?

I was surprised that interference machine is needed to have memory because this is most often avoided to be mentioned. On this line, any entity (interference machine also) has its own states’ history (“syntactic” and “semantic”) always available within its own inheritance. This implies that its whole previous history (that incorporates also Universe’s history) is precisely “known” to it, without any uncertainty. Hence it could predict the exact outcome of the next quantum-time’s step of Universe state. This does not imply that we will ever be able to predict the future, because we would have to construct a machine that interprets the whole Universe’s information in finite time. The only such machine could be the interference machine itself (human mind) and not any interpreter device (e.g. measurement device). The “wiser” a human mind is the more accurate can predict the future. As far as God is concerned, it could be possible to predict-govern its own Universe’s reality and not any other’s….

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jan. 22, 2016 @ 20:08 GMT
Which is inertial mass of Higgs boson? Idea that Higgs boson is giving inertial mass to particles (photos and gluons excluded) open question which is inertial mass of the Higgs boson itself. Right answer will be awarded by 100.000 Euro by Foundation of Physics Institute - FOPI.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.