CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
Without Cause by Mark Feeley
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Mark Feeley wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 16:01 GMT
Essay AbstractPhysicists increasingly accept that information is more fundamental than material things, but if material things are not fundamental, then neither are material causes: we will live in a world without cause. We thus examine the steps and missteps by which information came to be seen as more fundamental, examine the flaws and risks of a purely informational view, and consider a possible approach to restoring a belief in material things and material causes.
Author BioI received a Bachelors degree in Engineering Physics (UBC), then worked for 2 years in physics as a research associate. I subsequently changed directions to work for over 30 years an electrical engineer. In 1999, I co-founded a venture telecom company, which was sold in 2005. After a period working on other start-up ventures, I decided in 2009 to return to the independent study of physics.
Download Essay PDF File
Author Mark Feeley wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 20:13 GMT
This is my second entry to the contest, so I am getting a better sense of how things work. It seems that we often talk past each other in comments on others essays, so for those gracious enough to read and comment on my essay, I’d like to gently direct the blog:
The theme of my essay is simple: I suggest a way to understand quantum theory which can lead to physical theory, which avoids...
view entire post
This is my second entry to the contest, so I am getting a better sense of how things work. It seems that we often talk past each other in comments on others essays, so for those gracious enough to read and comment on my essay, I’d like to gently direct the blog:
The theme of my essay is simple: I suggest a way to understand quantum theory which can lead to physical theory, which avoids many paradoxes, and which does not suggest “It from Bit”. The logical argument for the way to understand quantum theory can be summarized in a few points:
1) Probability is not real. Probability is a measure of our degree of knowledge which we assign to the outcome of an experiment. We do not assign probabilities to things or properties of things. Things do not have probabilities, outcomes do.
2) A wavefunction is a fancy type of probability and is therefore not real. More precisely, a wavefunction is an ordered list of all of the possible outcomes of an experiment and the probabilities that we have assigned to those outcomes. We express this ordered list as a vector. A wavefunction is thus a description of an experiment, not a thing. Things do not have wavefunctions, experiments do.
3) Coins, cats, silver ions, electrons, and systems are things, therefore do not have wavefunctions.
4) Coin tossing, certain types of controlled cat killing, and the deflecting of silver ions by oddly shaped magnets are experiments, therefore do have wavefunctions. In fact, these three experiments are isomorphic, so the same operator and wavefunctions could be used for each.
There are many consequences of this view, with two of the obvious ones being:
1) Wavefunction collapse is obvious. If the outcome of an experiment is known, of course we should make a new ordered list which assigns 1 to the known result and 0 to the others. It would be silly not to.
2) Schrodinger’s Cat Experiment is not the least bit paradoxical: it is coin tossing. In the context of probability theory, |cat dead> does not refer to a state of the cat, it is an outcome of the experiment, and it would be better to write it in full as |“the event that the cat is found dead at end of the experiment”>. It is an outcome state, an event, not an attribute of a cat.
(Too much has been written about this paradox, so to poke a bit of fun: The real paradoxical experiment is one where we put a bunch of physicists in a box and allow them to debate Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox, and we measure the health of trees at the end of the experiment. The paradox is that the experiment returns an outcome of |tree found dead> far more often than reasonable observers would predict.)
So, I would be happy to receive any type of comments on the essay, but especially happy to receive comments directly related to the core argument.
Thanks for reading, Mark
view post as summary
JOSEPH E BRENNER wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Hello, Mark,
I liked your essay and your critique of Wheeler. I was also interested in the point about Mach: is he "responsible" for some of the problems in understanding reality by having introduced an unjustified categorial separation? If you look at my essay, you may see some thoughts about how matter/energy can be primitive on which I would welcome yours.
Best regards,
Joseph
report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Feeley replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 18:58 GMT
Joe, thanks for reading.
As to Mach: No, I think Mach was quite correct, and the category separation is justified. I think that the problems in understanding reality occurred later, with quantum theory: simply put, quantum theory incorrectly categorizes. Probability is an epistemological measure, and since wavefunctions are generalized probabilities, they are epistemological as well. Thus, things do not have probabilities, outcomes do. Things do not have wavefunctions, experiments do. I think this simple change allows us to understand both quantum theory and (to a lesser extent) reality better.
As to your viewpoint that matter/energy are primitive: I certainly agree that something physical is more primitive than information. I think that it should be relatively obvious that information is information about something. However, I am inclined think that geometry is more primitive than matter/energy. Further to some of the ideas that you discuss, I also generally support the view that the continuum is ontologically more primitive than the discrete. Continuous systems can easily exhibit quantized behavior (eg. frequency) with the application of boundary conditions, but it seems a little more difficult for discrete ones to exhibit continuous behavior. In the context of continuous systems, energy is either defined as something proportional to amplitude squared (classical wave mechanics) or frequency (quantum mechanics). Since amplitude and frequency can both be seen as geometric quantities, I support an ontological structure that is continuum -> discrete, geometry -> energy/matter, and actually agree with part of Wheeler's contention in that I think the reality/information interface is necessarily discrete (ie. we only get discrete information about reality).
Thanks, Mark
JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 08:32 GMT
Well, the only thing I can say is that I "anticipated" your position in the first sentence of my Essay! It is a corollary of my logical system that disjunctions of the kind between us are inevitable, as consequences themselves of the fundamental oppositions in the universe. These disjunctions are mild and useful. Those between responsible and irresponsible people (e.g. about the environment) are much more serious, but they are similar in form.
Best, Joseph
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 16:38 GMT
Mr. Feeley,
This is a beautifully written essay, and in my opinion, it was the easiest one for me to understand of all the essays that have appeared so far.
As an old decrepit realist, may I please make a self-serving comment about your fine essay? I believe that only unique exists. Your theoretical coin tossing machine could toss theoretical coins so that each tossed coin would land face up 100 percent of the time. I say no real unique machine could ever do so. May I point a tremulous finger toward the atomic clocks? Although they have been built to the highest of engineering standards, each clock still only records a unique time. Perfect synchronization can never physically be achieved.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Feeley replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 18:27 GMT
Joe, thanks for reading and for your very nice comments. You wrote a very similar nice comment about my essay last time.
Since you were so gracious last time, and since you seem to read and comment on all essays as soon as they are posted, I actually read yours first as I was waiting for mine to be posted. I found it very enjoyable, and I agree with your realist perspective. I am probably at least as decrepit a realist as you. I only try to put forward some way to make some sense of physics given that realism.
Thanks again, Mark
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 19:48 GMT
Dear Mark Feeley,
In a comment to Karl Coryat on your previous essay you remarked: "It would probably take at least another complete essay to argue against an entirely "it from bit" picture, so I can't really do the discussion justice, but I'll try nevertheless."
Boy, have you delivered.
Not only should all physics students be forced to write "Probability is not real" 500...
view entire post
Dear Mark Feeley,
In a comment to Karl Coryat on your previous essay you remarked: "It would probably take at least another complete essay to argue against an entirely "it from bit" picture, so I can't really do the discussion justice, but I'll try nevertheless."
Boy, have you delivered.
Not only should all physics students be forced to write "Probability is not real" 500 times, but they should be forced to read your essay three or four times. This would, I believe, go quite a way toward clearing up current conceptual problems in physics.
I completely agree with you that a belief in "magic" is the underlying basis of these problems, whether recognized by the believers or not.
You mentioned that Edwin Jaynes redeveloped much of stochastic mechanics in terms of Shannon's information theory "and gave us a new understanding of entropy as an informational or epistemic concept rather than a thermodynamic one." And yet, as I quote in my technical endnotes, Jaynes said:
"...a persistent failure to distinguish between the information entropy, which is a property of any probability distribution, and the experimental entropy of thermodynamics, which is instead a property of a thermodynamic state... [Many] authors failure to distinguish between these entirely different things [leads to] proving nonsense theorems."
Your entire essay is important, but one of the most important lines is: "they will instantly recognize that an observable is a name for a type of experiment, not a property of some physical thing."
This is what I was getting at in my essay when I said, "It is unclear what bits refer to: does spin have only two states, or is it that the direction of the apparatus' magnetic field forces spin into one of two states?"
Your three line treatment of "collapse" is priceless!
I would like to invite you to read my current essay,
Gravity and the Nature of Information, and hope you will comment on it. Because you note that "the evidence offered by the equations positively suggests a physical world with wavelike features" I would also suggest you might enjoy my previous essay,
The Nature of the Wave Function.
Mark I think your essay is the best one in this contest so far for addressing the topics of this contest and the problems with physics. Thank you sincerely for writing this. It really should be required reading for all!
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Feeley wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 20:05 GMT
Edwin, wow, thanks, that is very high praise.
I think you have understood my point extremely well, and I am very glad, you pointed out the line regarding the nature of an observable. I actually think that one line highlights the central problem with the interpretation of quantum theory.
I have not yet read your essay, but I'll read it next. Since you are in agreement with the ideas I have presented, I have no doubt that yours will reflect, and probably help confirm, a similar viewpoint. You are "spot on" with your consideration of spin. Just as a coin does not have a heads or tails state until the tossing experiment is done, so an electron need not have an up or down state until the Stern-Gerlach deflecting experiment is done. This is simply because heads and tails, and up and down are outcomes not properties.
I appreciate your comments very much.
Thanks, Mark
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 20:26 GMT
Dear Mark
Unfortunately, your essay is too large for automatic translation capabilities of my computer.
Nonetheless wish you success
What your core argument ?
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 23:24 GMT
Mark,
It is a pleasantly readable and understandable essay, most of which I agree with. I do think probability is real though.
One of the points I make frequently in these discussions is that physics simply models the normal view of time as a sequence of events by treating it as a measure of duration, when the underlaying fact is that it is action creating this change. To wit, it is not the earth traveling a fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becoming yesterday because the earth rotates. Consider this in terms of the infamous cat; in the future it is either dead or alive, but it is the actual occurrence of events which determines its fate.
Now your argument against probability is that all circumstances leading any particular event exist and they will interact according to laws that will result in a determined outcome. The problem here is that there is no position prior to this event that all such input could be known. In order to know all input prior to the event, information of the input would have to travel faster than the actual input. Since much does travel as light, this would have to be even faster and if it were, then potential input could be traveling superluminously and the problem still exists. So while the laws governing any process are by definition, deterministic, the input cannot be known. There is no "God's eye view."
While my own
entry is decidedly perfunctory, one point I do try to make is that knowledge is inherently subjective and that since it is conveyed by energy, combining information will obscure and blur detail, losing information. So probability, ie. limited information, is fundamental to the very nature of information.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 02:26 GMT
John, thanks for reading.
I am pretty sure that probability is not real, and I think that people like Laplace, Bayes, de Finetti, and Jaynes, have made that case more convincingly than I can.
I didn't make any comment on the nature of time in my essay at all, although I do intuitively with your position that it is a measure of relative change.
As to infamous cats, I do not...
view entire post
John, thanks for reading.
I am pretty sure that probability is not real, and I think that people like Laplace, Bayes, de Finetti, and Jaynes, have made that case more convincingly than I can.
I didn't make any comment on the nature of time in my essay at all, although I do intuitively with your position that it is a measure of relative change.
As to infamous cats, I do not think there are any times when I can make a definite statement about the cat. I do an experiment when I put the unfortunate fellow in the box, namely looking at him to see if his tail moves. I do a second experiment identical to this when I open the box. Based on what I know about the conditions in the box (cyanide capsules, nuclear decay, and whatnot), I can make an estimate, a bet, as to what the result of the second experiment will be. At no time can I legitimately claim I know the state of a cat, initially, in between, or at the end. I can only ever know the result of an experiment, and I only do two of them.
I definitely do not argue that "all circumstances leading to a particular event exist". I argue exactly the opposite: there is only one set of circumstance leading to an event. I argue for a very strict determinism, but one in which we do not know initial or intermediate conditions precisely so that we cannot know the future outcomes. Note that just because I do not know the causal sequence does not mean there is no causal sequence. This is precisely Jaynes' Mind Projection Fallacy. I agree there is no God's eye view, but this is only because there is not possible to have perfect information, even for this God person. Thus, just because God does not know the causal sequence does not imply that there is no causal sequence.
I didn't exactly follow your point about superluminous transport of information. I argue that quantum theory is a theory of experiments, not a physical theory, and thus it makes no sense to speak of QM as either local or non-local - it is entirely epistemic. Therefore the locality or non-locality of QM is irrelevant to any question of the speed of information transfer. Nothing at all about the physical world can be concluded from any apparent locality or non-locality of QM.
Too bad about the cake thing though, I quite like cake and I like to share it too.
Thanks very much for reading and commenting. Mark
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 11:20 GMT
Mark,
I guess my argument in a nutshell is that while the laws determining an outcome are, by definition, deterministic, there is no way to know all the input, from any frame, so it is not pre-determined, ie. fated.
The point about time is that while we experience it as a series of circumstances, from past to future, that which is past has been determined, while that which is future hasn't yet been, so when we treat this vector as fundamental, we go from a determined state to an indeterminate state and end up in multiworlds. If we look at it from the other direction, the indeterminate state becoming a determined state, it makes much more sense.
Before the race, there are ten winners, but after it, only one.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Feeley replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 13:36 GMT
John, I think I can lay out a way that your understanding the vector of time as a series of circumstances is consistent with my interpretation of QM in a sensible way.
I agree with the assumptions of your first sentence, but not the conclusion. I argue that the laws determining an outcome are by definition deterministic, and there is no way to know all the input. So far we agree. Where we...
view entire post
John, I think I can lay out a way that your understanding the vector of time as a series of circumstances is consistent with my interpretation of QM in a sensible way.
I agree with the assumptions of your first sentence, but not the conclusion. I argue that the laws determining an outcome are by definition deterministic, and there is no way to know all the input. So far we agree. Where we differ is in the last clause. I argue that this means the outcome is indeed determined, and is indeed fated, but we do not know, and cannot know, that predetermined outcome or fate in advance.
I think you are conceiving of your vector of time as a series of circumstance, rather than a dimension, which I can accept. But in these terms then, I think there are two such vectors, one is the "actual" vector, in other words, the predetermined or fated vector, the other is our imperfect guess at this vector.
In fact in quantum theory, we make formally vectors pointing at each possible outcome, and assign probabilities to them and this vector with probability components is the wavefunction in a Hilbert space.
Thus, in your race example, we make 10 vectors, one pointing to each of your runners in the race. Formally we make these outcome vectors orthonormal. We assign a probability (expressed as a root) to each runner. To project the outcome of the race, we give a magnitude equal to the root of the probability for each outcome to a vector in the corresponding direction, and add the ten vectors. Since all the probabilities squared add to 1, this gives us a unit vector. This vector is the wavefunction in Hilbert space. The wavefunction thus describes the projected outcome for the whole race, not the state of a runner.
In this picture, there is an actual sequence, which I am understanding as your vector of time, which results in an actual outcome of the race. Then there is a second vector, which is a probability weighted vector pointing to possible outcomes, which is the wavefunction. Since it is a generalized probability, this second vector is not real, and not fundamental.
I hope this captures where we agree and disagree. I can certainly agree with your notion of time, but I think I have described how it can be understood in a way consistent with my interpretation of quantum theory.
Mark
view post as summary
Anonymous replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 18:29 GMT
Mark,
The difference seems to be between determined and pre-determined. Necessarily everything that does happen is determined, but prior to that, the factors which will do the actual determining and not just speculate about it, are not yet interacting. Now a spectator can, given sufficient information, make a fairly educated guess as to the outcome of a particular event in controlled circumstances, but that can only account for the expected.
So I would again argue that while we can predict an outcome and conclude after the event that the result was determined by the course of events, that prior to the event, neither the actual factors involved, nor any speculative position can either theoretically or effectively know the actual course of events and that this amounts to a lack of pre-determination. Not to be confused with the fact that some sequence of events will emerge and be evident after the fact.
To suppose a "fated vector" is to suppose some form of "fore-knowledge" by the system as a whole and that goes back to the subjective nature of knowledge, as opposed to our top down tendency to see ourselves as objective.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Feeley replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 23:15 GMT
John, (it says anonymous, but I assume you've been hit by the time out on login).
This is an interesting discussion which offers some insight into both information/reality and deterministic/non-deterministic. I will concede (and I hope you do as well) that both arguments can be used to fit the empirical evidence. However, the choice between the two is not simply a matter of taste. The...
view entire post
John, (it says anonymous, but I assume you've been hit by the time out on login).
This is an interesting discussion which offers some insight into both information/reality and deterministic/non-deterministic. I will concede (and I hope you do as well) that both arguments can be used to fit the empirical evidence. However, the choice between the two is not simply a matter of taste. The choice speaks to the entire nature of physical law.
You argue (I hope I paraphrase correctly):
1) That we are able to determine the actual state of physical things in the present. A sequence of events up to the present may be determined by plotting a trajectory of such states through a state space.
2) Some events or outcomes are fundamentally indeterminate. That is, there are some fundamentally stochastic (= somehow inherently "random" or somehow "uncaused") events. Thus, we are unable to predict future outcomes.
I argue:
1) That all events are entirely predetermined (or fated if you will). This is an assumption about the nature of all physical law - a character of the ontological domain.
2) That we (and "we" emphatically includes God) may never know a physical state. We may only know the result of experiments. Since we cannot know even a single physical state, we cannot know a trajectory in state space, even in the past. Since we can never know a current state or past trajectory, we can never predict with certainty the outcomes of future experiments, even in the context of deterministic evolution. This is a statement about what we can know and what we can predict - a character of the epistemic domain.
Your argument can not be rejected out of hand. Indeed, it is essentially the one which is at the heart of orthodox QM, and which has now had about a century of primacy. However, I think it leads to many of the paradoxes and interpretational difficulties of QM, which have not been resolved in that century.
I propose to resolve many of those issues by assigning probability, wavefunctions, and any other predictive tool, to the epistemic domain, the domain of information, where they rightfully belong, and "purifying" the ontological domain, the domain of reality, so that it is entirely governed by deterministic physical law. I do not think that determinism implies fore-knowledge at all. Knowledge is the epistemic domain, not the ontological. Predetermined and predictable do not mean the same thing. An event may be predetermined (a characterization of events in the ontological domain) but yet be unpredictable (a characterization of events in the epistemic domain).
I could be be wrong, and as I said, both approaches can fit the evidence. I just think that after a 100 years of relative futility in resolving quantum paradoxes, we might try a different approach.
Nice discussion. Thanks for engaging.
Regards, Mark
view post as summary
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Mark,
Actually it would be a no to both paraphrases. My
entry might explain why on the first. ie the subjectivity of knowledge. As for the second, I accept cause.
I'm willing to agree my point is epistemic, but that does raise the issue of what ontological really is. For one thing, the concept of pre-determination would essentially be meaningless, because there is no concept of past and future, only present action. Cause is simply that the energy is conserved.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 17:39 GMT
Dear Mark Feeley,
I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.
Regards and good luck in the contest.
Sreenath BN.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827
report post as inappropriate
Manuel S Morales wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 19:30 GMT
Mark,
"... a great many theoretical physicists believe in magic and not physical law." WOW, what a great way to begin an essay of what I found to be a kindred sprit! I trust you will find my coin-in-cup experiment of value for it supports your position of causality.
I believe you will find my cause and effect analysis of the four forces of keen interest. The findings as presented in my essay have led me to examine how causality unifies gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministc force, see:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809Best wishes,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 03:22 GMT
Hi Mark,
Nicely written essay that flows well. Passionate too, which is nice to see here. s I especially like that you've concluded it "wrong and dangerous to assume that information is fundamental". I think that It and Bit are either likely equally fundamental or reality is more fundamental. Hopefully you will take a look at my
essay too, so we may discuss any common ground (or differences for that matter).
Kind regards,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Anton Biermans wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 07:00 GMT
Hi Mark,
I agree that '' ''It from Bit'' is simply not [Wheelers] finest hour''. However, I do not agree with your statement that '' ''It'' does not derive from ''Bit''. ''Bit'' manifestly derives from ''It''.''
If there would be only a single charged particle in the entire universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. Since it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions. I think that the idea ''so simple … that when we grasp it, we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?'' is the quite obvious proposition that in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, fundamental particles (its), their properties, are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, of the (exchange of) bits, so you obviously cannot have one without the other.
Regards, Anton
report post as inappropriate
Author Mark Feeley replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 15:22 GMT
Anton,
You raise some interesting and difficult points, which I will attempt to deal with.
Actually, I think that the first point so is not difficult: I think information is evidently information about something, of Bit is indeed manifestly from It.
Your other points are more subtle so much better to discuss.
First of all, I take Mach much more seriously than Wheeler....
view entire post
Anton,
You raise some interesting and difficult points, which I will attempt to deal with.
Actually, I think that the first point so is not difficult: I think information is evidently information about something, of Bit is indeed manifestly from It.
Your other points are more subtle so much better to discuss.
First of all, I take Mach much more seriously than Wheeler. Per the quote I included in my essay, Mach says that the best science can do is be the most economical abstract expression of facts. Taken seriously, this means that science cannot tell us what "is". It can only arrange the apparent facts nicely. To arrange our facts, we build models, mathematical pictures of particles and fields and forces and energies and whatnot. Per Mach, we cannot claim any of these things exist, although this emphatically does not imply something does not exist or reality is not fundamental. All we can do is build models, usually with some parameters, and a particle with a parameter of charge is such a model. Thus, when we speak of "a particle" or "a wave", we are really speaking of "the idea of a particle" and "the idea of a wave". (I admit that these steers dangerously close to Wheeler, but Wheeler goes too far by claiming that the idea of a particle "is" the particle or is more fundamental than whatever is that is real). If that is acknowledged, then the idea of a particle necessarily includes both its causes and effects. So, if we are talking about the idea of a particle then I agree with you, they are as much cause as effect of their interactions. However, I am inclined to think that Mach was more perceptive than most of us, and therefore we cannot claim that particles (or waves or anything) exist, so if your argument rests on such a claim, then it must fail.
Overall, I think the idea that cause is fundamental is a much stronger logical position from which to build physics than the idea that particles with charge are fundamental. If particles are as much cause as effect of their interactions, I suggest this points to a weakness of the particle model, rather than an invalidation of the principle of cause.
To get more clearly at the point about causality, given that I claim not to know what exists: I simply argue that it is the most economical to assume it. There are (at least) two types of models that we make in physics. The first are "physical" or ontological models: models which attempt to describe the world in some way. Most of our models are this type, Newtonian theory, Maxwell's electromagnetism, Einstein's gravity etc. They all assume a certain model structure, the existence of physical "things of some type, along with a strict determinism and causality. On the other hand, I have argued that quantum mechanics, similar to probability theory, is not one of these, and that it is a theory of experiments. Quantum mechanics actually describes the process of doing experiments which unknown outcomes, nothing more. It is an epistemic model, and it is not in any way a physical theory, therefore cannot say anything about physical theory. Physical content only enters by the probabilities which we assign various outcomes. We assign the probabilities and equation of by which we guess they might evolve, they are not inherent parts of the theory.
A somewhat more nuanced version of my argument is that I thing we are will achieve Mach's goal of the most economical abstract expression of facts if we continue to assume ontological models with a strict determinism, that is, where cause is fundamental. Furthermore, with QM properly understood as an epistemic theory not an ontological one, we have no barriers to continue to assume such ontological determinism.
Sort of long winded, but you raise difficult points, so I had a go.
Thanks for reading and thanks for opening a discussion, Mark
view post as summary
Anton Biermans replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 02:09 GMT
Hi Mark,
As to ''we cannot claim that particles (or waves or anything) exist'', that depends on what we mean with ''exist''.
If the very most fundamental law of a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference, is the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing -so everything inside of it, including space and time...
view entire post
Hi Mark,
As to ''we cannot claim that particles (or waves or anything) exist'', that depends on what we mean with ''exist''.
If the very most fundamental law of a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference, is the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing -so everything inside of it, including space and time itself must cancel, so there's nothing left to see if we could actually step outside the universe, then in this sense, the universe has no physical reality, does not exist as 'seen' from without, so to say. This apparently doesn't prevent Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) make statements about it, a conceptual fallacy which, I'm afraid, completely disqualifies the 'theory'. If, as you agree, particles are both cause and effect of their interactions, then they only exist to one another if, to the extent and for as long as they keep interacting, so they do not exist to particles outside their interaction horizon.
Whether they exist to us and what nature we observe them to have, how we find them to behave when interfered with in an experiment is affected by the kind of experiment we subject them to, by the question we ask them. So while in classical mechanics, ''exist'' is a state, a noun, in a self-creating universe, in quantum mechanics, it is an activity, a verb: if we could cut of the continuous energy exchange between particles by means of which they express and preserve each other's properties, they'd vanish without trace, like the picture on a TV screen when we switch it off.
The problem of causality is that if you explain the mass of particles as originating in their interactions with the Higgs field or boson, then to explain the mass of the Higgs boson you need to invent a pre-Higgs particle, the mass of which to explain in turn requires a pre-pre-Higgs particle, ad infinitum. As I argue in my essay, cause is not fundamental. If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause and the chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum or ends/starts with some primordial cause or event which, as it cannot be explained as the result from a preceding event, cannot be understood by definition, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. As in a self-creating universe particles create, cause one another, they explain each other in a circular way: here we can take any element of an explanation, any link of the chain of reasoning without proof, use it to explain the next link and so on, to follow the circle back to the assumption we started with, which this time is explained by the foregoing reasoning.
My objection to (temporal) causality (as opposed to ontological 'causality') is that it confuses cause and effect, or, to be more precise, that, if particles indeed are both cause and the effect of their interactions, we can no longer say that their mass precedes gravity between them, so instead of saying that particles contract because they have a certain constant rest mass (they somehow, mysteriously have been provided with) and gravity is attractive, we can as well say that they acquire mass only if and when they contract (agreeing with the uncertainty principle), that in doing so they power time. The idea of temporal causality, that cause precedes effect, only would make sense if we could determine what precedes what in an absolute sense, if we could look from outside the universe in, which BBC, in the concept of cosmic time, wants to make us believe is justified even though we cannot actually step outside of it. To regard it as an object we may imagine to observe from without only would be justified if particles only would be the source, and not also the product of their interactions.
In other words, to me ''ontological determinism'' seems to be a contradiction in terms.
Regards, Anton
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:55 GMT
Send to all of you
THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT
To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :
1 . THE...
view entire post
Send to all of you
THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT
To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :
1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?
The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.
The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.
B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?
It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .
C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?
Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.
D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?
The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.
E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?
To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:
2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :
“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”
That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.
I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.
Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.
To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com
Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.
Hải.Caohoàng
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
Mark,
I enjoyed your essay and agree with most points.Your magic metaphor, I attribute to the narcissism of humans.
"Just as the ancient painters used pigments to create representations
of the reality they saw,we use mathematics to create representations of the reality we see."
I like your comparison.
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 01:33 GMT
Dear sie
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead...
view entire post
Dear sie
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.
Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/
Pdf download:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf
Part of abstract:
- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .
Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .
A
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .
B.
Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……
C
Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.
2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.
3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.
4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?
D
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
It from bit - where are bit come from?
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.
Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..
E
Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.
I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 15:03 GMT
Mark,
Your essay is really excellent. I saw you have judge honestly and dared going against to majority! Now I will read your work carefully and we will continue talks. Please check my work where you will find confirmation to your position.Take care, we are colleagues!
ESSAY Sincerely,
George
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 10:06 GMT
Hi Mark,
Very nice essay. Gordon Watson made mention of it so I took a look. And was I happy reading? YES. I will respond by pasting excerpts and making comments immediately below.
RE: To understand the way out of the crisis, we must first understand the way in.
Agreed. How far back do we go? The crisis started much further back than the 100 years you think.
RE: The flawed concept of physical probabilities is almost inextricably tied into the foundations of quantum theory and leads directly to most of the confusion in physics.
I am 100% in with you on this, just like many others. But when someone drew a line in his geometry book and told you it had no breadth, why didn't we complain that not only was this not probable, it was impossible? Instead, we clapped and hailed this as an accomplishment. Why complain today?
RE: “Questions about what?” and “It from Bit” suggests that we should consider information theory, not physical theory, as fundamental .
I understand your sentiment being a realist myself. Not that I agree with Wheeler, completely but I think there is a genuine puzzle to solve: If you are an omnipotent and omniscient being and a naughty boy like Wheeler, knowing fully well that a question is not a material thing, asks you, "Daddy, create things FROM a question that has two answers", what will you do? What question will you ask, whose Yes or No answer can result in a thing coming from the question? Note, that you are not restricted in the kind of question to ask, so far the question has only two answers, Yes (1) or No (0). It may even be a stupid question.
If I get a reply from you, I will suggest a possible stupid question, then let me know if this question is within the rules of the puzzle.
Best regards,
Akinbo*I will preferably want you to attempt the puzzle before reading my essay.
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Sir,
Your highly readable essay looks like a tutorial. You have guided the reader steo by step to reach the right conclusion. Your concluding remark: “information about reality and reality itself are different things, they must be differentiated in any theory” should be the clarion call of the day. Unfortunately, because of the mad rush to ‘establish oneself’, there is no time to apply discretion and everyone is building theories upon other’s statements. As if there is no place for independent thinking. Unless you quote others, it is not science. We have received many enquiries about references on our essay:
“INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published here on May 31, because we have not referred to any earlier work. It is original work.
Not only physicists believe in magic and are superstitious, but also reductionism has eroded their ability to link various aspects of the same subject. There are a large number of different approaches to the foundations of QM. Each approach is a modification of the theory that introduces some new aspect with new equations which need to be interpreted. Thus there are many interpretations of QM. Every theory has its own model of reality. There is no unanimity regarding what constitutes reality.
Information about reality may vary, but reality itself must be invariant. Something makes meaning only if the description remains invariant under multiple perceptions or measurements under similar conditions through a proper measurement system. Reality must be invariant under similar conditions at all times. The validity of a physical theory is judged by its correspondence to reality.
Most of our views are similar to your views. You are welcome to read and comment.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 12:06 GMT
Dear Sir,
Your essay is highly enjoyable reading TEACHER!, but more important, you call a spade a spade brutally. We fully agree with your views. However, to be considerate to the others, a stochastic process or event is not without a natural cause. The term indicates population parameters – the band width - leaving aside its cause, but focusing only on the effect. Hence we cannot call it...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Your essay is highly enjoyable reading TEACHER!, but more important, you call a spade a spade brutally. We fully agree with your views. However, to be considerate to the others, a stochastic process or event is not without a natural cause. The term indicates population parameters – the band width - leaving aside its cause, but focusing only on the effect. Hence we cannot call it supernatural or magic. But you are right – modern scientists are the biggest lot of superstitious people, who have blind faith in ‘established theories’ even on the face of proven contradiction and all scientific papers and books contain references to these ‘established theories’ and their authors in unnecessarily glorified terms to make the student superstitious. The cult of incomprehensibility not only perpetuates such superstition, but also protects it from public glare.
Mach’s distinction between ‘information about reality’ and ‘reality itself’ implies observation and observable leaving aside the observer. In many threads here and elsewhere we have proved that physical reality is not observer dependent – the Moon will continue to exist when we are not looking at it and will continue to move at a predetermined rate irrespective of whether someone is observing it or not. Observation only reports its state at that instant to the observer to be stored in his memory and used for comparison with fresh impulses/data later. This makes the information limited. The probabilistic or statistical treatments do not address the problem of limitation, but build structures on limited data, which in many cases turned out to be misleading. Irrespective of the position of the observer, the coins will fall at a certain spatial orientation. That is real, because the result of the toss is invariant to all observers after taking into consideration their relative positions. The positioning of the observer only changes the report, as seen by the observer, because the ‘axes’ of the coordinate system change leaving the ‘origin’ intact. It does not change reality. This is the cause of the directional system. Something that is at our right can be at our left by changing our position.
Uncertainty is inherent in Nature because of inter-connectedness and interdependence of everything with everything else. When we try to measure something, the result of measurement will not only rest on our operation, but also the environment in which we operate. Even our measuring device and its functioning will be subject to the density fluctuations in the environment that will change the income pulse from the outgoing pulse. Heisenberg was right that “everything observed is a selection from a plentitude of possibilities and a limitation on what is possible in the future”. But his logic and the mathematical format of the uncertainty principle: ε(q)η(p) ≥ h/4π are wrong.
The inequality: ε(q)η(p) ≥ h/4π or as it is commonly written: δx. δp ≥ ħ permits simultaneous determination of position along x-axis and momentum along the y-axis; i.e., δx. δpy = 0. Hence the statement that position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously is not universally valid. Further, position has fixed coordinates and the axes are fixed arbitrarily from the origin. Position along x-axis and momentum along y-axis can only be related with reference to a fixed origin (0, 0). If one has a non-zero value, the other has indeterminate (or relatively zero) value (if it has position say x = 5 and y = 7, then it implies that it has zero momentum with reference to the origin. Otherwise either x or y or both would not be constant, but will have extension). Multiplying both position (with its zero relative momentum) and momentum of the same particle (which is possible only at a different time t1 when the particle moves), the result will always be zero. Thus no mathematics is possible between position (fixed coordinates) and momentum (mobile coordinates) as they are mutually exclusive in space and time. They do not commute. Hence, δx.δpy = 0.
Nature Physics (2012) (doi:10.1038/nphys2194) describes a neutron-optical experiment that records the error of a spin-component measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spin-component. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the Masanao Ozawa’s relation: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π but violate the old one in a wide range of experimental parameters. Even when either the source of error or disturbance is held to nearly zero, the other remains finite.
Quantization is opposed to inter-connectedness and interdependence. The degree of uncertainty and manipulations (contrary to mathematical principles) of Maxwell’s equations also confuse everything as shown below.
The wave function is determined by solving Schrödinger’s differential equation:
d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0.
By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The way the equation has been written, it appears and taught to students as an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation in one dimension to the three spatial dimensions (adding two more equal terms by replacing x with y and z) does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A three dimensional equation is a third order equation implying volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume [x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z)] and [x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z)]. Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation.
Much before Anaxagoras, the ancient Indian Text ‘Yoga Vashistha’ written not later than 4000 BC, says: “Mano bhavati bhutatmaa taranga iba varidheh” – which literally means the mind itself becomes the perceived world like one wave in the sea arises after another.
Your refutation of Wheeler’s views has traces of the measurement problem nicely put.
The views of Jaynes was discussed in much greater detail in the ancient Indian Text ‘Gautama Sootras’, whose commentary by Vatsayana is much more elaborate. We have used some of it in our essay “INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published here on May 31. You are welcome to visit it.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 00:14 GMT
Dear Mark,
Your course, and the lessons that can be taken from it are excellent! Well-written and critical of the right fundamental elements, with a logical presentation that's laid out so lucidly--it is a truly great contribution. '"Bit" is about "it"'. Of course it is.
I agreed with everything from your assessment of Machian epistemics, to your classical construction of quantum...
view entire post
Dear Mark,
Your course, and the lessons that can be taken from it are excellent! Well-written and critical of the right fundamental elements, with a logical presentation that's laid out so lucidly--it is a truly great contribution. '"Bit" is about "it"'. Of course it is.
I agreed with everything from your assessment of Machian epistemics, to your classical construction of quantum mechanics, to your criticism of where it all went wrong; i.e. attaching physical meaning to probabilistic outcomes. Simply put, physics got to where it is today because at the beginning of the twentieth century they were all positivists--except that they then began to surreptitiously assign some form of realistic to aspects of models that have no basis in reality.
The points in your lesson plan were laid out so clearly; e.g.,
"Furthermore, heads and tails have no meaning at all until the experiment is complete, so coins cannot be said to “have” heads or tails states. They will conclude, hopefully, that heads and tails are outcomes of the experiment. They are not properties or states of the coin; they are states of the outcome. The difference is profound."
Indeed, it is; and by the lucidity of your beautiful essay, I could clearly see the profoundness of your point already by the time I got to "... have no meaning..." The conclusion of your second class is fundamentally important.
Your re-assertion:
"Not wishing to write more lines, they will not accept that the wavefunction is in any way physical, or even directly associated with anything physical. Probability is not real"
comes at exactly the right place--just where the formalism risks being thought of as something more than a probabilistic model used to describe outcomes of (coin-toss) experiments. And you cement the right idea perfectly in what follows, clearly demonstrating what's wrong with common ideas like wavefunction "collapse".
I, like you, am at a loss to see how "law without law" could possibly make sense to anyone; how experimental outcomes could be all there is to reality. Wheeler's proposal, in the Machian tradition, is simply to try and put the cart before the horse--and it's as unrealistic as any proposal in that tradition could be; "a premium on stupidity" that "supports a supernatural view"
I give your essay a thumbs-up, interpreted on the scale of 1 to 10, which is unfortunately all I can do to combat the thumbs-downs you've received from people who obviously haven't read your incredible essay.
The scope of my essay (1820) is completely different, but it's fundamentally consistent with yours. I hope you can read and rate it, and perhaps find time to comment as well.
Best wishes in all regards,
Daryl
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 00:15 GMT
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 03:16 GMT
Dear Mark,
I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.
Regards and good luck in the contest,
Sreenath BN.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 19:33 GMT
Mark,
I was left with one big but entirely unanswered question on reading your essay. Why is is that 'IT' is much more than a 'BIT' lower down the score sheet than it should very clearly be. I seems it's not been read by many, but I think it may also be a reflection on the state of physics. As an optimist I agree;
"...with some intellectual discipline and some retraining, we might escape this crisis."
Indeed in my essay I suggest we're overdue for a "processor upgrade". I absolutely agree all you say, and find it brilliantly expressed and argued. I smiled at much. including; "The choice facing physics is not one of information theory versus physical theory, it is information theory plus physical theory versus information theory plus magic."
"...probabilities express our own ignorance due to our failure to search for the real causes of physical phenomena -and worse, our failure even to think seriously about the problem."
"(Information theory) will provide clarity to be sure, but will not and cannot produce a physical theory... A physical theory underlying quantum theory is also needed, and it is most definitely not naïve to pursue it."
And you even end with my favourite Wheeler quote which I've found good cause to agree.
I do hope you'll find time to read my essay, where I hope I demonstrate valuable findings from doing precisely what you propose. I've tested an ontological model from the simplest idea, but which most aren't yet quite able to grasp. I hope you will and look forward to your questions and comments.
Congratulations on an essay that hits all important nails square on the head, saying those things few dare to suggest, and with a clear voice. It's a shame that this most promising forum has so far failed to hear the message. Perhaps this year?
Congratulations on an excellent job, and very best of luck in the final run in.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 19:54 GMT
Dear Mark,
I red your essay and found it interesting.
However, after a long time at thinking at the problem you(we) are talking about, I really think that Bohr was right. Quantum theory, that deals about the measurements, is very rich although paradoxal. Wheeler is also right in the sense of observer participancy. It means that some determinism exists in our access to reality as I show in my essay. Please have a look.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789
Best regards,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:17 GMT
Dear All,
It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.
iSeries always yields two sub semi...
view entire post
Dear All,
It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all
the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.
iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.
One of the sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
the second sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.
Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation
Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i
Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".
Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.
Examples
starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5
-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5
Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 2 5 13 34 ...
Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 3 8 21 55 ...
Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)
The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.
As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.
The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.
I have put forth the absolute truth in the
Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.
I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of
zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.
All this started with a simple question, who am I?
I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.
I super positioned my self or I to be me.
I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.
I am Fibonacci series in iSeries
I am phi in zero = I = infinity
I am 3Sphere in iSphere
I am pi in zero = I = infinity
I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).
Love,
Sridattadev.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:10 GMT
Hi Mark
Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)
said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...
view entire post
Hi Mark
Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)
said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”
I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.
The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .
Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.
Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.
I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!
Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.
Good luck and good cheers!
Than Tin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:14 GMT
Dear Sir,
This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.
Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear....
view entire post
Dear Sir,
This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.
Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic – “complex, even inexplicable behavior”. Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of “the deer population in Northern Michigan”, is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.
Infinities are like one – without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others – every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.
Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,…n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use “a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers”, you do just that through “comparison and exchange instructions”. You develop these by “inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by ‘mating’ parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated” and repeat it “thousands upon thousands of time” till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought “evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible”. After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.
Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area – the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.
The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.
However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally ‘illuminates’ the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.
Regards,
mbasudeba@gmail.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 03:47 GMT
Mark,
Probability is not real. And it has turned many physicists into mystery mongers of a new religion. I am paraphrasing you and amplifying. Your essay is refreshing and to the point. If you do get time look at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1823. I present the history of how we got stuck with the uncertainty principle. I think you will like.
I like your essay and it gets my vote.
Thanks,
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 00:35 GMT
Mark - what an outstanding essay. Full marks!
The first page and halfway through the second page read like a rant from a frustrated physicist. However it got better, much better, after that. By the end of the essay, I felt like I had an education in probability I should have had 25 years ago.
You adroitly articulated what many of us are so frustrated by in Quantum Theory. Even for people like me who (shamefully) was once formally trained in the subject, and never questioned it for half his career. I think you hit the nail on the head. We really must teach people a solid foundation in probability theory before we let them loose on anything to do with quantum.
Although I often use the math in engineering problems, I don’t think it was until I took Daphne Koller’s online class in Probabilistic Graphical Models at Stanford that I finally got the message that you also so succinctly presented to me today. Thank you for that. Thank you also for the reference to Fenetti with that wonderfully insightful quote. I will order that book today. You might also read Richard Feynman’s nice essay on "The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics" at Cornell.
One aspect I might wish to argue with you on is regarding causality (and the implication of the title of your essay). I believe an important distinction is missing: between something having or not having a root cause (with its conceptual hierarchy of turtles all the way down - Bertrand Russell and Huw Price's argument) and the "direction" of causality, which is influenced by the preparation of an experiment which includes time reversibility. I mentioned this in my essay, where I tried to provide a different perspective on how, even with a well defined ontology, this can still “appear” random.
Good luck in the contest.
Kind regards, Paul
report post as inappropriate
Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:29 GMT
Hi Mark,
Thanks for an excellent essay, informative and very well written!
I agree with you that we should search for realistic models for QM, and explain the related contextuality.
As you insist that Bit must come from It, I wonder what you think of the possibility of a computable formulation for physics: in other words, that we might find the laws of physics could be described by reference to specific computations. If we do, then would we be right to say the "It"s of the physical arise from "Bit"s below? Or should we shift our idea of the "ground of being" down to the substrate of that computation?
Developing such a computable view is the thrust of my essay,
Software Cosmos which describes how the simulation paradigm explains many observational puzzles in cosmology. I hope you get a chance to take a look.
Hugh
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.