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.

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.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**M. Vasilyeva**: *on* 8/10/13 at 3:17am UTC, wrote Thank you :) I may take up your offer of a referee. As for Suslin's book on...

**Carolyn Devereux**: *on* 8/7/13 at 23:47pm UTC, wrote Thank you for your reply. I have no technical papers on this, that is my...

**Giacomo D'Ariano**: *on* 8/7/13 at 21:32pm UTC, wrote Paul, thank you for your compliments. I think that our points of view...

**Giacomo D'Ariano**: *on* 8/7/13 at 17:56pm UTC, wrote Beautiful Marina, I am very curious about your future books. I have a huge...

**M. Vasilyeva**: *on* 8/7/13 at 17:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Prof. D'Ariano, thank you for your detailed reply! I must say that...

**Paul Borrill**: *on* 8/7/13 at 17:22pm UTC, wrote Giacomo - I rated this yesterday but forgot to add a comment... I found...

**M. Vasilyeva**: *on* 8/7/13 at 16:51pm UTC, wrote Beautiful professore :) thank you so much for answering my questions. I'm...

**Giacomo D'Ariano**: *on* 8/7/13 at 14:40pm UTC, wrote David I thank you very much for your high opinion of my essay. I share...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**James Putnam**: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..."
*in* Black Hole Photographed...

**Steve Agnew**: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Robert McEachern**: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Steve Agnew**: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Douglas Hemmick**: "begin{quote} For example, in his chapter on Bell's theorem, he concludes..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM

May 19, 2019

CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]

TOPIC: It from Qubit by Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano [refresh]

TOPIC: It from Qubit by Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano [refresh]

In this essay I will embark on the venture of changing the realist reader’s mind about the informational viewpoint for physics: “It from Bit”. I will try to convince him of the amazing theoretical power of such paradigm. Contrary to the common belief, the whole history of physics is indeed a winding road making the notion of “physical object”–the “It”–fade away. Such primary concept, on which the structure of contemporary theoretical physics is still grounded, is no longer logically tenable. The thesis I advocate here is that the “It” is emergent from pure information, an information of special kind: quantum. The paradigm then becomes: “It from Qubit”. Quantum fields, particles, space-time and relativity simply emerge from countably infinitely many quantum systems in interaction. Don’t think that, however, I can cheat by suitably programming a “simulation” of what we see. On the contrary: the quantum software is constrained by very strict rules of topological nature, which minimize the algorithmic complexity. These are locality, unitariety, homogeneity, and isotropy of the processing, with minimal quantum dimension. What is amazing is that from just such simple rules, and without using relativity, we obtain the Dirac field dynamics as emergent.

I am professor at the University of Pavia, where I teach "Quantum Mechanics" and "Foundations of Quantum Theory", and enjoy research with a marvelous group of young collaborators.

Dear Giacomo,

Well done on your contribution. I will not really criticize because from the classical view, a lot of abstract things are encountered in the quantum account of reality. I side with Einstein, that some of these will eventually be explainable classically, but I may be wrong.

From your statements such as, "quantum systems in interactions", "The whole quantum...

view entire post

Well done on your contribution. I will not really criticize because from the classical view, a lot of abstract things are encountered in the quantum account of reality. I side with Einstein, that some of these will eventually be explainable classically, but I may be wrong.

From your statements such as, "quantum systems in interactions", "The whole quantum...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

thank you for your compliments and interest. Just a brief response to your main point, we'll continue later after I will have read your contribution.

If you make space emerging from pure topology, there is no space separator, as each system has no volume. All these notions have meaning in a pre-existing space. If Stephen Hawking says that before the birth of the universe there was no space and time, everybody agrees. If he says that the universe was so small to be comparable with a pin point, nobody asks "where" the pin was. Well, here it is the same. If space can be curved, nobody contests that such curved space must be inside another flat one. Here there is no space to start with, space is emerging. Reducing space to an emergent entity arising from quantum systems in interaction is a way to reduce dramatically the starting ingredients of quantum field theory. From the Occam's razor point of view this is very good. The continuity of states of quantum theory restores the continuous symmetries starting from the discrete ones, but only in the relativistic limit of small momenta. At the Planck scale everything looks quite blurred and oscillating, and relativistic covariance breaks down.

My best regards

Mauro

thank you for your compliments and interest. Just a brief response to your main point, we'll continue later after I will have read your contribution.

If you make space emerging from pure topology, there is no space separator, as each system has no volume. All these notions have meaning in a pre-existing space. If Stephen Hawking says that before the birth of the universe there was no space and time, everybody agrees. If he says that the universe was so small to be comparable with a pin point, nobody asks "where" the pin was. Well, here it is the same. If space can be curved, nobody contests that such curved space must be inside another flat one. Here there is no space to start with, space is emerging. Reducing space to an emergent entity arising from quantum systems in interaction is a way to reduce dramatically the starting ingredients of quantum field theory. From the Occam's razor point of view this is very good. The continuity of states of quantum theory restores the continuous symmetries starting from the discrete ones, but only in the relativistic limit of small momenta. At the Planck scale everything looks quite blurred and oscillating, and relativistic covariance breaks down.

My best regards

Mauro

Mauro,

I have been reading your essay but found your reply here especially interesting, as my essay also demonstrates that differential topology does not incorporate volume. My view is that if a metric theory can also have quantized volume (using Gunnar Nordstroem's theory) then this could be used as a link between GR and QFT. I will have to re-read your essay a few times but look forward to giving it a high rating.

Kind Regards,

JP Baugher

report post as inappropriate

I have been reading your essay but found your reply here especially interesting, as my essay also demonstrates that differential topology does not incorporate volume. My view is that if a metric theory can also have quantized volume (using Gunnar Nordstroem's theory) then this could be used as a link between GR and QFT. I will have to re-read your essay a few times but look forward to giving it a high rating.

Kind Regards,

JP Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Wow!

Well write, and well done.

I am thinking that the restored Theseus ship is not the same ship (not the same microscopic material, not the same microscopic structure): I think that is more simple the construction of the same being (for example a animal clone with memory), because the dna have the complete information on the complete construction, and the brain memory contents is a macroscopic quantity (a measure of a single neuron don't destroy the neuron); then the state transmission is possible (in some centuries?) of the being with memory.

I have a problem with your theory: if we have a equation (classical or quantum) that describes the evolution of the system (with local interaction), then the output of the computer is equal to the "output" of the real world; the quantum computer is near the real world (that is quantum), then a correspondence with some quantum system must exist.

For example, an analogic computer can approximate each natural phenomenon, but this don't say me that the reality is an net of connected analogic computers.

It is interesting the game on the web: it can represent a quantum neuron transmission, and quantum reasoning; but I think that can be possible the reconstruction of the exact metric of the connection graph using a multiple choice of communication delay (A-B-C, A-D-C, A-B-D-C and so on).

If I understand well, the Weil equation is obtained by the transmission of the vector/spinor signal in the lattice, but if the graph can be rebuilt with the communication delay, then can be possible the sincronization in a curvature space with communication delay?

I have an other problem: can it happen a local transmission of two entangled spinor, with opposite value with two distinct (and contiguous) lattice points (EPR paradox)?

report post as inappropriate

Well write, and well done.

I am thinking that the restored Theseus ship is not the same ship (not the same microscopic material, not the same microscopic structure): I think that is more simple the construction of the same being (for example a animal clone with memory), because the dna have the complete information on the complete construction, and the brain memory contents is a macroscopic quantity (a measure of a single neuron don't destroy the neuron); then the state transmission is possible (in some centuries?) of the being with memory.

I have a problem with your theory: if we have a equation (classical or quantum) that describes the evolution of the system (with local interaction), then the output of the computer is equal to the "output" of the real world; the quantum computer is near the real world (that is quantum), then a correspondence with some quantum system must exist.

For example, an analogic computer can approximate each natural phenomenon, but this don't say me that the reality is an net of connected analogic computers.

It is interesting the game on the web: it can represent a quantum neuron transmission, and quantum reasoning; but I think that can be possible the reconstruction of the exact metric of the connection graph using a multiple choice of communication delay (A-B-C, A-D-C, A-B-D-C and so on).

If I understand well, the Weil equation is obtained by the transmission of the vector/spinor signal in the lattice, but if the graph can be rebuilt with the communication delay, then can be possible the sincronization in a curvature space with communication delay?

I have an other problem: can it happen a local transmission of two entangled spinor, with opposite value with two distinct (and contiguous) lattice points (EPR paradox)?

report post as inappropriate

I am thinking that a curvature space, in this lattice, can be simple: an artificial delay in each point of lattice can reproduce a curvature space; so can be obtained the Einstein field equation in a lattice with delay?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dominico

The 'an artificial delay in each point of lattice' Exactly!! That means a slower speed of light (a natural result of curvature, as Einstein himself admitted, contradicting his SR.) Eddington(1920) suggested treating the gravitational field as an optical medium with a gradient index of refraction. With that, and forgetting about SR because Lorentz transformations occur naturally in an absolute lattice, GR reduces to a ridiculously simple theory. I adopted this idea and incorporated it into my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory .

With best wishes.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

The 'an artificial delay in each point of lattice' Exactly!! That means a slower speed of light (a natural result of curvature, as Einstein himself admitted, contradicting his SR.) Eddington(1920) suggested treating the gravitational field as an optical medium with a gradient index of refraction. With that, and forgetting about SR because Lorentz transformations occur naturally in an absolute lattice, GR reduces to a ridiculously simple theory. I adopted this idea and incorporated it into my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory .

With best wishes.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Domenico

thank you very much for your compliments. Just a temporary fast reply for now (I just came back from a conference in Nottingham). I also want to read the interesting contributions from the other submitters.

What the automaton does is to evolve an input state, exactly as quantum field theory does. In order to understand what we see we need also the input state: this is a separate problem. I have some ideas in mind, but it would be too long to discuss them here. Curvature of space will be at a higher level of emergence, whence there will be also gravity in the theory. Here the discrete world is flat, and gravity should emerge as a pure quantum effect (see Sakarov, Jacobson, Verlinde).

Definitely you can have entanglement between the spinors of particles here. In the relativistic regime narrowband states here behave exactly like usual Fermions. I will post some movies on this web site soon.

Until next

Thank you again,

My best regards

Mauro

thank you very much for your compliments. Just a temporary fast reply for now (I just came back from a conference in Nottingham). I also want to read the interesting contributions from the other submitters.

What the automaton does is to evolve an input state, exactly as quantum field theory does. In order to understand what we see we need also the input state: this is a separate problem. I have some ideas in mind, but it would be too long to discuss them here. Curvature of space will be at a higher level of emergence, whence there will be also gravity in the theory. Here the discrete world is flat, and gravity should emerge as a pure quantum effect (see Sakarov, Jacobson, Verlinde).

Definitely you can have entanglement between the spinors of particles here. In the relativistic regime narrowband states here behave exactly like usual Fermions. I will post some movies on this web site soon.

Until next

Thank you again,

My best regards

Mauro

Caro Giacomo,

Very nice essay ! First class !

I like your: "What is amazing is that from just such simple rules, and without using relativity, we obtain the Dirac field dynamics as emergent"

I believe that the universe and its underlying structure is much simpler than what we think.

You might want to take a look at my essay, I propose a very simple theory that is a mixture of Dirac's LNH, Wheeler's it from Bit and the Holographic principal.

Best of luck with the contest.

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Very nice essay ! First class !

I like your: "What is amazing is that from just such simple rules, and without using relativity, we obtain the Dirac field dynamics as emergent"

I believe that the universe and its underlying structure is much simpler than what we think.

You might want to take a look at my essay, I propose a very simple theory that is a mixture of Dirac's LNH, Wheeler's it from Bit and the Holographic principal.

Best of luck with the contest.

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Dear Giacomo,

It was a pleasure reading your contribution.

There are really a lot of paralels between my essay "THE QUEST FOR THE¨PRIMAL SEQUENCE" including the "deamterialisation" and Plato's cave.

I have a different way of expression of course and my deductions are pointing in another way, but basicly we are parting on the same point.

I hope that can spare some time to read/rate and commenet my essay.

best of luck and regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

It was a pleasure reading your contribution.

There are really a lot of paralels between my essay "THE QUEST FOR THE¨PRIMAL SEQUENCE" including the "deamterialisation" and Plato's cave.

I have a different way of expression of course and my deductions are pointing in another way, but basicly we are parting on the same point.

I hope that can spare some time to read/rate and commenet my essay.

best of luck and regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Wilhelmus,

thank you for your very nice compliment.

I will definitely read your essay, also to see the different way you use for the "deamterialisation" and Plato's cave!

Before starting reading other people essays, I need to finish answering to my thread.

Thank you very much again

And best luck to you!

Mauro

thank you for your very nice compliment.

I will definitely read your essay, also to see the different way you use for the "deamterialisation" and Plato's cave!

Before starting reading other people essays, I need to finish answering to my thread.

Thank you very much again

And best luck to you!

Mauro

Dear Professor D'Ariano,

Beautiful essay! You said "But the clash between the two is logically solved only if we admit that they are not both correct: at least one of them must hold only approximately, and emerge from an underlying more fundamental theory. Which one of the two? The answer from It from Qubit is: relativity theory."

Good question: which theory has to be changed, general relativity, or quantum mechanics? It seems to me that general relativity can be conceived in many ways as an approximation, a limiting case, an emergent theory (like your very nice approach based on Gromov's geometric-group theory). On the other hand, the most rigid seems to be quantum mechanics. One can interpret it, if we wish, in many ways, none of them satisfactory for our classical brain, but it is hard to be modified, despite some attempts like Bohmian mechanics and GRW. So it seems that, if one of them has to be changed, it has to be general relativity. I still hope that there's a way to combine them with minimal concessions from any of the two. The problems are huge, but the day is early.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Beautiful essay! You said "But the clash between the two is logically solved only if we admit that they are not both correct: at least one of them must hold only approximately, and emerge from an underlying more fundamental theory. Which one of the two? The answer from It from Qubit is: relativity theory."

Good question: which theory has to be changed, general relativity, or quantum mechanics? It seems to me that general relativity can be conceived in many ways as an approximation, a limiting case, an emergent theory (like your very nice approach based on Gromov's geometric-group theory). On the other hand, the most rigid seems to be quantum mechanics. One can interpret it, if we wish, in many ways, none of them satisfactory for our classical brain, but it is hard to be modified, despite some attempts like Bohmian mechanics and GRW. So it seems that, if one of them has to be changed, it has to be general relativity. I still hope that there's a way to combine them with minimal concessions from any of the two. The problems are huge, but the day is early.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Dear Cristi

Thank you for your encouragement. You share my opinion that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little, whereas General Relativity is more flexible to changes, e.g. depending on the physical scale. Let me distinguish between Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, the former being the theory of abstract systems (states, observables, transformations, in terms of Hilbert spaces and operator algebra), the latter containing the "mechanics" (i. e. the explicit operator form of the momentum, the particle Hamiltonian, quantization rules, etc.). The "mechanics" is also more flexible to changes, as for GR. In a sense this flexibility is almost a tautology, since Quantum Theory is an abstract theory of systems, hence more general and fundamental, holding for any kind of physics, a sort of "logic" (von Neuman, Mackey and Varadarajan were the first ones to think of it in this way). The "mechanics" and the GR, instead, may have a more restricted validity, e.g. to a physical scale ranging from Fermi (or probably larger) to the galactic one. And I believe that they are both emergent from a more fundamental theory at a tiny Planck scale. What I showed in my joint paper with Paolo Perinotti is that for SR and for the "mechanics" such emergence can be indeed achieved, and, astonishingly, from very basic principles. This is the way of combining the theories that you are mentioning. And SR must have a limited validity, for small momenta (small here means still huge, much larger of those of UHECR's). At a scale approaching the Planck one one start having a space-time that is really quantum, with coarse-grained events, events that delocalize depending on the boost (the relative locality of Giovanni Amelino Camelia and Smolin), and deformed Lorentz transformations, or dispersive-Lorentz (i.e. that depend on the wave-vector).

Thank you again for stimulating this discussion.

My best regards

Mauro

Thank you for your encouragement. You share my opinion that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little, whereas General Relativity is more flexible to changes, e.g. depending on the physical scale. Let me distinguish between Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, the former being the theory of abstract systems (states, observables, transformations, in terms of Hilbert spaces and operator algebra), the latter containing the "mechanics" (i. e. the explicit operator form of the momentum, the particle Hamiltonian, quantization rules, etc.). The "mechanics" is also more flexible to changes, as for GR. In a sense this flexibility is almost a tautology, since Quantum Theory is an abstract theory of systems, hence more general and fundamental, holding for any kind of physics, a sort of "logic" (von Neuman, Mackey and Varadarajan were the first ones to think of it in this way). The "mechanics" and the GR, instead, may have a more restricted validity, e.g. to a physical scale ranging from Fermi (or probably larger) to the galactic one. And I believe that they are both emergent from a more fundamental theory at a tiny Planck scale. What I showed in my joint paper with Paolo Perinotti is that for SR and for the "mechanics" such emergence can be indeed achieved, and, astonishingly, from very basic principles. This is the way of combining the theories that you are mentioning. And SR must have a limited validity, for small momenta (small here means still huge, much larger of those of UHECR's). At a scale approaching the Planck one one start having a space-time that is really quantum, with coarse-grained events, events that delocalize depending on the boost (the relative locality of Giovanni Amelino Camelia and Smolin), and deformed Lorentz transformations, or dispersive-Lorentz (i.e. that depend on the wave-vector).

Thank you again for stimulating this discussion.

My best regards

Mauro

Hi Mauro,

I found your essay very interesting, but one thing has always puzzled me about your approach to quantum field theory. At the beginning of your essay you argued that, if we are to take realism seriously, then it has to be a realism based on operationalism. Now, the crowning example of operationalism in physics is Einstein's derivation of special relativity from his two...

view entire post

I found your essay very interesting, but one thing has always puzzled me about your approach to quantum field theory. At the beginning of your essay you argued that, if we are to take realism seriously, then it has to be a realism based on operationalism. Now, the crowning example of operationalism in physics is Einstein's derivation of special relativity from his two...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Mathew, I support the ansatz that special relativity should be derived from a more fundamental truth. The most fundamental approach would be to consider a particle as a closed wave system adhering to the Maxwell equations and the derived wave equation, the only mathematical description that exists to transport energy. This I have addressed in my 2012 FQXI essay paragraph 2.2 and paragraph 2.3 is simply repeated as subject for this year's essay; this time keeping it simple and to the point on two pages only.

Special relativity (and GR) I class as a discrete-particle-space-time-geometry theory, and QM tries to fit into this. I clearly show in my essay, using the landmark Michelson-Morley experiment, that the contemporary paradigm fails when substituting the discrete-particles with continues-waves. The continues-wave-space-time-geometry has problems when applying relativistic corrections, thus it is not surprising that GR and QM cannot find a common ground.

In the spirit of this contest, I would appreciate your comment why the problem I highlighted in my 2013 essay is not a problem to the contemporary way of thinking

Regards - Anton

report post as inappropriate

Special relativity (and GR) I class as a discrete-particle-space-time-geometry theory, and QM tries to fit into this. I clearly show in my essay, using the landmark Michelson-Morley experiment, that the contemporary paradigm fails when substituting the discrete-particles with continues-waves. The continues-wave-space-time-geometry has problems when applying relativistic corrections, thus it is not surprising that GR and QM cannot find a common ground.

In the spirit of this contest, I would appreciate your comment why the problem I highlighted in my 2013 essay is not a problem to the contemporary way of thinking

Regards - Anton

report post as inappropriate

I don't dispute the idea that it might be a good idea to derive relativity from something more fundamental. I am simply querying how this is compatible with D'Ariano's explicitly operational philosophy.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Matthew,

Thank you very much for your interesting and seriously provoking comments. It is always exciting to discuss with you, since you are always touching interesting points at the basis of the full framework and of the way of looking at things.

Why the quantum automata theory is a continuation of my work on QT with Giulio Chiribella and Paolo Perinotti? Simply because the...

view entire post

Thank you very much for your interesting and seriously provoking comments. It is always exciting to discuss with you, since you are always touching interesting points at the basis of the full framework and of the way of looking at things.

Why the quantum automata theory is a continuation of my work on QT with Giulio Chiribella and Paolo Perinotti? Simply because the...

view entire post

Giacomo,

I too feel we need to change our perspective of reality and so I find myself rating your essay highly. One thing, if you agree with John Bell's theorem then you must also agree with the alternative that he proposed that being of super-determinism, if and only if, empirical evidence of absolute determinism is obtainable.

On that note, I believe you will find the evidence of absolute determinism as presented in my essay of interest and I hope you will take the time to review and rate it accordingly. I believe you will find it relevant to your efforts as well:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

I too feel we need to change our perspective of reality and so I find myself rating your essay highly. One thing, if you agree with John Bell's theorem then you must also agree with the alternative that he proposed that being of super-determinism, if and only if, empirical evidence of absolute determinism is obtainable.

On that note, I believe you will find the evidence of absolute determinism as presented in my essay of interest and I hope you will take the time to review and rate it accordingly. I believe you will find it relevant to your efforts as well:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Manuel

Thank you for your interest and form kindly rating my essay.

I'm curious about Bell's superdeterminism, and I will read and rate your essay. I imagine that, however, it would be not possible to experiment it. If I understand what it is, it is a kind of metaphysical assumption. But I need to read your essay before jumping to conclusions.

My best regards

Mauro

Thank you for your interest and form kindly rating my essay.

I'm curious about Bell's superdeterminism, and I will read and rate your essay. I imagine that, however, it would be not possible to experiment it. If I understand what it is, it is a kind of metaphysical assumption. But I need to read your essay before jumping to conclusions.

My best regards

Mauro

Giacomo,

John Bell's use of the term 'super-determinism' is another way of saying that determinism is predetermined. The findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded has provided empirical evidence to substantiate that nature is absolutely deterministic in that its construct is predetermined.

The evidence infers that no experiment can be conducted without a selection first being made. I find that physics focus on observed or measure effects and not its true cause. This tiny detail is what has prevented us from understanding reality. I hope you find time to review my findings:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Best wishes,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

John Bell's use of the term 'super-determinism' is another way of saying that determinism is predetermined. The findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded has provided empirical evidence to substantiate that nature is absolutely deterministic in that its construct is predetermined.

The evidence infers that no experiment can be conducted without a selection first being made. I find that physics focus on observed or measure effects and not its true cause. This tiny detail is what has prevented us from understanding reality. I hope you find time to review my findings:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Best wishes,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Mauro,

Thank you for your curiosity and for having an open mind. I found John Bell's 'super-determinism' description well worth exploring. The findings show that the 'metaphysical' reference you mention is derived from our 'interpretation' of reality which turns out to be culprit preventing us from obtaining the Theory of Everything as presented in my essay. I trust you may want to review the initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment as presented at the April, 2011, APS convention which served as the basis of my essay: PHYSICS OF PREDETERMINED EVENTS Complementarity States of Choice-Chance Mechanics

I look forward to your review.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your curiosity and for having an open mind. I found John Bell's 'super-determinism' description well worth exploring. The findings show that the 'metaphysical' reference you mention is derived from our 'interpretation' of reality which turns out to be culprit preventing us from obtaining the Theory of Everything as presented in my essay. I trust you may want to review the initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment as presented at the April, 2011, APS convention which served as the basis of my essay: PHYSICS OF PREDETERMINED EVENTS Complementarity States of Choice-Chance Mechanics

I look forward to your review.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Respectfully Professor D’arino,

You actually directed your essay to an imaginary realist. Durr may have stupidly said that “matter is not made of matter,” what he ought to have truthfully said was, abstract matter is not made of real matter. Like Duh!

Do allow me to increase your knowledge of reality and real realists.

One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real “speed” of light through one real infinite dimension once.

One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

report post as inappropriate

You actually directed your essay to an imaginary realist. Durr may have stupidly said that “matter is not made of matter,” what he ought to have truthfully said was, abstract matter is not made of real matter. Like Duh!

Do allow me to increase your knowledge of reality and real realists.

One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real “speed” of light through one real infinite dimension once.

One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe,

It seems to me that you are not a realist, and I'm not sure if your are making jokes about the realist point of view, or about Durr.

My best regards

Mauro

It seems to me that you are not a realist, and I'm not sure if your are making jokes about the realist point of view, or about Durr.

My best regards

Mauro

Professor Mauro,

Is that comment an admission that you can only change the imaginary minds of suspected realists? If Wheeler had only asked:

Is the Universe real? Yes

Is information real? No

Is the real Universe simple? Yes

Is the abstract universe simple? no

Is unique, once simple? yes.

Is quantum theory simple? No.

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Is that comment an admission that you can only change the imaginary minds of suspected realists? If Wheeler had only asked:

Is the Universe real? Yes

Is information real? No

Is the real Universe simple? Yes

Is the abstract universe simple? no

Is unique, once simple? yes.

Is quantum theory simple? No.

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Dear professor D'Ariano,

In response to your interesting Essay, I would like to discuss Bell's theorem. For in my Essay, Bell's theorem is refuted.

For example, you write: "The lesson spelled loud and clear by the Bell theorem is that we should trust observations, even against our intuition, and ground our knowledge on the logic of the experiment, focusing theoretical predictions on what we actually observe. In a word: being operationalist."

But with Bell's theorem refuted, this justification for your "operationalism" is invalid.

The case might change if I have erred. But no error has yet been identified in my Essay. So, to resolve our differences, I would welcome discussions with you and your team of collaborators.

With best regards; Gordon Watson.

report post as inappropriate

In response to your interesting Essay, I would like to discuss Bell's theorem. For in my Essay, Bell's theorem is refuted.

For example, you write: "The lesson spelled loud and clear by the Bell theorem is that we should trust observations, even against our intuition, and ground our knowledge on the logic of the experiment, focusing theoretical predictions on what we actually observe. In a word: being operationalist."

But with Bell's theorem refuted, this justification for your "operationalism" is invalid.

The case might change if I have erred. But no error has yet been identified in my Essay. So, to resolve our differences, I would welcome discussions with you and your team of collaborators.

With best regards; Gordon Watson.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gordon,

Clearly if the Bell theorem would be refuted, it would not be a theorem anymore. Here we are discussing about its interpretation. However, about this, let's judge people from outside.

My best regards

Mauro

Clearly if the Bell theorem would be refuted, it would not be a theorem anymore. Here we are discussing about its interpretation. However, about this, let's judge people from outside.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Mauro,

With respect, but with Bell's theorem refuted, you need to examine the history of how it came to be called "a theorem." That was not Bell's fault.

And, without deeper analysis of Bell's "theorem," I suggest that any "interpretation" by you and your team is likely to be ill-founded and just another addition to a growing list of such. For we must always recall that all Bell inequalities are refuted by experiments.

In that my theory is wholly local and realistic AND non-contextual, you can see that it is a challenge to many interpretations, not just yours.

About this from you,"let's judge people from outside." I would prefer to avoid a popularity contest and have you and your team address the high-school maths and logic on which my theory is based. Given that my results are fully supported experimentally, such action would of course challenge your opinion "that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little."

But it is from such challenges that science progresses -- and the change that I make to Quantum Theory is very small indeed.

Yet it is enough to eliminate the postulate that you suggest distinguishes the Quantum from the Classical; for that change relates to entanglement (after Schroedinger) and the measurement process (after von Neumann).

PS: Whilst I much prefer open discussions, I am happy to continue this discussion privately if you or any member of your team so wishes.

With best regards, and looking forward to your reply; Gordon Watson.

report post as inappropriate

With respect, but with Bell's theorem refuted, you need to examine the history of how it came to be called "a theorem." That was not Bell's fault.

And, without deeper analysis of Bell's "theorem," I suggest that any "interpretation" by you and your team is likely to be ill-founded and just another addition to a growing list of such. For we must always recall that all Bell inequalities are refuted by experiments.

In that my theory is wholly local and realistic AND non-contextual, you can see that it is a challenge to many interpretations, not just yours.

About this from you,"let's judge people from outside." I would prefer to avoid a popularity contest and have you and your team address the high-school maths and logic on which my theory is based. Given that my results are fully supported experimentally, such action would of course challenge your opinion "that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little."

But it is from such challenges that science progresses -- and the change that I make to Quantum Theory is very small indeed.

Yet it is enough to eliminate the postulate that you suggest distinguishes the Quantum from the Classical; for that change relates to entanglement (after Schroedinger) and the measurement process (after von Neumann).

PS: Whilst I much prefer open discussions, I am happy to continue this discussion privately if you or any member of your team so wishes.

With best regards, and looking forward to your reply; Gordon Watson.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Giacomo Mauro

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

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...

view entire post

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Satyavarapu

Compliments for the positive feedback that you got.

I will take a look at your essay.

My best regards

Mauro

Compliments for the positive feedback that you got.

I will take a look at your essay.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Mauro,

Do you find any empirical evidence for producing matter from information...?

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Do you find any empirical evidence for producing matter from information...?

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Satyavarapu,

not "production", but "emergence", of matter from information. This is very different.

There are phenomena that can confirm the quantum cellular automata theory, such as blurring of images at (with increasing frequency) of ultra-deep space quasars. The whole phenomenology of "relative locality" that is implied by the distortion of Lorentz covariance at high momenta should produce observable consequences. We are studying the phenomenology with other more expert authors.

Cheers

Mauro

not "production", but "emergence", of matter from information. This is very different.

There are phenomena that can confirm the quantum cellular automata theory, such as blurring of images at (with increasing frequency) of ultra-deep space quasars. The whole phenomenology of "relative locality" that is implied by the distortion of Lorentz covariance at high momenta should produce observable consequences. We are studying the phenomenology with other more expert authors.

Cheers

Mauro

Dear Giacomo,

Congratulations- well done - you have taken the materialistic "It" particle bull by the horns, armed with an impressive array of philosophical and mathematical weapons, knowledge of the relevant physics, in addition to having the rare courage to adopt new approaches bypassing Einstein. As I read your essay I was mentally cheering you on, since my own essay concluded that our...

view entire post

Congratulations- well done - you have taken the materialistic "It" particle bull by the horns, armed with an impressive array of philosophical and mathematical weapons, knowledge of the relevant physics, in addition to having the rare courage to adopt new approaches bypassing Einstein. As I read your essay I was mentally cheering you on, since my own essay concluded that our...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sorry I was not logged in - that 'Anonymous' was my post above.

Vladimir Tamari

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Tamari

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir

Thank you for your really nice compliments.

I'm curious about your BU. However, I can tell you that only the BCC works for spinors: it is the only lattice compatible with unitariety for a C^2 field. And this is really striking!

My best regards

Mauro

Thank you for your really nice compliments.

I'm curious about your BU. However, I can tell you that only the BCC works for spinors: it is the only lattice compatible with unitariety for a C^2 field. And this is really striking!

My best regards

Mauro

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Hi Prof D'Ariano,

First, may I congratulate you on your well structured and thought provoking essay. I really enjoyed reading it.

Teleportation as you describe could be flawed by the very QM theories that make the idea feasible, I am thinking of entanglement. Suppose that the process of living, growing, and learning entangles groups of atoms; then when we assemble these in the growing or duplication and learning phases. Would you envisage that when restoring two atoms taken from a pool of atoms, that by duplicating their QM states that you also entangled them?

By entanglement, I understand that two particles are part of the same wave-function and I cannot envisage the possibility that two particles belonging to two different wave-functions with unknown entanglement to replicate to the desired. Furthermore, during the teleportation preparation, for each atom that is remotely entangled to another atom outside the human you need to teleport that remote atom as well and taking that process to its conclusion you need to teleport the whole universe.

Change of subject: Regarding special relativity and quantum mechanics please refer to my comment to Mathew Leifer's earlier comment above.

Regards - Anton

report post as inappropriate

First, may I congratulate you on your well structured and thought provoking essay. I really enjoyed reading it.

Teleportation as you describe could be flawed by the very QM theories that make the idea feasible, I am thinking of entanglement. Suppose that the process of living, growing, and learning entangles groups of atoms; then when we assemble these in the growing or duplication and learning phases. Would you envisage that when restoring two atoms taken from a pool of atoms, that by duplicating their QM states that you also entangled them?

By entanglement, I understand that two particles are part of the same wave-function and I cannot envisage the possibility that two particles belonging to two different wave-functions with unknown entanglement to replicate to the desired. Furthermore, during the teleportation preparation, for each atom that is remotely entangled to another atom outside the human you need to teleport that remote atom as well and taking that process to its conclusion you need to teleport the whole universe.

Change of subject: Regarding special relativity and quantum mechanics please refer to my comment to Mathew Leifer's earlier comment above.

Regards - Anton

report post as inappropriate

Dear Anton

Thank you for your compliments. There is no problem with teleporting entanglement, since teleportation is entanglement-swapping, you can swap entanglement of the first system and than that of the second system, ending with the two particles entangled. Regarding SR I had already answered to your comment.

Now, regarding your previous post in Matthew thread about SR,

This is similar to what I did: special relativity emerging from a more fundamental theory--the quantum automaton. Dirac is emergent, and Maxwell as well!

Best regards

Mauro

My best regards

Mauro

Thank you for your compliments. There is no problem with teleporting entanglement, since teleportation is entanglement-swapping, you can swap entanglement of the first system and than that of the second system, ending with the two particles entangled. Regarding SR I had already answered to your comment.

Now, regarding your previous post in Matthew thread about SR,

This is similar to what I did: special relativity emerging from a more fundamental theory--the quantum automaton. Dirac is emergent, and Maxwell as well!

Best regards

Mauro

My best regards

Mauro

Giacomo,

From the first words of your abstract, I was prepared to resist having my mind changed about realism. My fear was laid to rest early in the body of the essay:

"What matters is our ability of making correct predictions, not of describing what is out there as it is -- a nonsense, since nobody can check it for us."

Exactly. This is the metaphysical realism that Popper espoused, abstracted from Tarski's correspondence theory of truth and aimed at settling the Demarcation Problem.

Yours is an excellent essay, packing a lot of careful thought into one elegant package. It's a stroke of genius to associate quantum mechanics with an operational type of realism -- I don't agree with it; however, if the anti-realism of QM could be rehabilitated, this is probably the only path available.

Best wishes for deserved good luck in the contest.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

From the first words of your abstract, I was prepared to resist having my mind changed about realism. My fear was laid to rest early in the body of the essay:

"What matters is our ability of making correct predictions, not of describing what is out there as it is -- a nonsense, since nobody can check it for us."

Exactly. This is the metaphysical realism that Popper espoused, abstracted from Tarski's correspondence theory of truth and aimed at settling the Demarcation Problem.

Yours is an excellent essay, packing a lot of careful thought into one elegant package. It's a stroke of genius to associate quantum mechanics with an operational type of realism -- I don't agree with it; however, if the anti-realism of QM could be rehabilitated, this is probably the only path available.

Best wishes for deserved good luck in the contest.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tom

Thank you very much for your beautiful compliments, and thanks for the citation of the metaphysical realism of Popper espoused from Tarski's correspondence theory of truth. I will come soon to it, since it is a major point for serious science. I also appreciate your last sentence about QT: indeed, I think that it has been rehabilitated to a new mature kind of realism.

My best regards

Mauro

Thank you very much for your beautiful compliments, and thanks for the citation of the metaphysical realism of Popper espoused from Tarski's correspondence theory of truth. I will come soon to it, since it is a major point for serious science. I also appreciate your last sentence about QT: indeed, I think that it has been rehabilitated to a new mature kind of realism.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Prof D'Ariano,

While you focus on predictions, as opposed to "what is out there as it is", you postulate a group of agents with "buttons to push". I've yet to see an argument for "information only" reality that did not, at some level, rely upon objective reality. Even though you may consider throwing away the buttons in the end it appears impossible to get software off the ground...

view entire post

While you focus on predictions, as opposed to "what is out there as it is", you postulate a group of agents with "buttons to push". I've yet to see an argument for "information only" reality that did not, at some level, rely upon objective reality. Even though you may consider throwing away the buttons in the end it appears impossible to get software off the ground...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin Eugene,

even though I know that you are a realist opponent of my point of view, I very much appreciate your post, since it allows me to peek more inside the realist's mind, and enrich my arguments. From the fact that I need to tell a tale, made of real objects and persons, in order to help the reader have an intuition of what is "emergent space", you conclude that the world must...

view entire post

even though I know that you are a realist opponent of my point of view, I very much appreciate your post, since it allows me to peek more inside the realist's mind, and enrich my arguments. From the fact that I need to tell a tale, made of real objects and persons, in order to help the reader have an intuition of what is "emergent space", you conclude that the world must...

view entire post

Dear Mauro,

Thank you for the above response. You are correct, I am a matter-realist (no offense). But I am not sure you understand how I conceive of matter. Rather than use your blog space to explain my theory, I will simply invite you read my essay. It may offer you a different perspective on matter.

But you did not address my questions, except for the first. I do recognize that...

view entire post

Thank you for the above response. You are correct, I am a matter-realist (no offense). But I am not sure you understand how I conceive of matter. Rather than use your blog space to explain my theory, I will simply invite you read my essay. It may offer you a different perspective on matter.

But you did not address my questions, except for the first. I do recognize that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dr. D'Ariano,

Hi. I enjoyed reading your essay and think your type of reasoning where you try to develop "subroutines" for the universe that "stringently derive from few very general principles" is exactly the type of minimum assumption, start-with-the-basics type reasoning that I wish more physicists and philosophers would use. That's what I advocate in my essay as well. I do have...

view entire post

Hi. I enjoyed reading your essay and think your type of reasoning where you try to develop "subroutines" for the universe that "stringently derive from few very general principles" is exactly the type of minimum assumption, start-with-the-basics type reasoning that I wish more physicists and philosophers would use. That's what I advocate in my essay as well. I do have...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Roger,

Thank you for your post. Your compliments and your feedback are very much appreciated. Here my answer, point by point.

1A. About holism, everybody including me will agrees that the whole is not necessarily the sum of the parts. What is not so obvious is that we can still think the whole as composed of parts when properties of the whole are incompatible with any property of each part! What then does it mean to be an object? Does the notion of object make sense without a consistent notion of property?

1B. Allow me to correct your "more fundamental state" into "more fundamental entity", and there are infinitely many entities having all properties still incompatible with some properties of the whole (holism), but that, at least in principle, we can observe locally thanks to local-discriminability of QT.

2. It seems to me that we are on a similar wavelength. I just want to emphasize that I'm using the world "state" the way we use in QT. The state is one (for the whole universe), the systems are many. The specific state is not controlled by the theory: the theory provides only its evolution.

3A. Objects are usually located in space. This doesn't mean that the space location define the object: it is a property of the object. Besides, a moving object is always the same object, it is not a different object at each different time. In this sense a teleported object is the same object moved to another place. The fact that matter is the same everywhere is the indistinguishability of identical particles in QFT.

3B. We agree here that space is made by "relations between things". For me such things are quantum systems, not objects.

Nice to talk with you, Roger

Thank you again

My best regards

Mauro

Thank you for your post. Your compliments and your feedback are very much appreciated. Here my answer, point by point.

1A. About holism, everybody including me will agrees that the whole is not necessarily the sum of the parts. What is not so obvious is that we can still think the whole as composed of parts when properties of the whole are incompatible with any property of each part! What then does it mean to be an object? Does the notion of object make sense without a consistent notion of property?

1B. Allow me to correct your "more fundamental state" into "more fundamental entity", and there are infinitely many entities having all properties still incompatible with some properties of the whole (holism), but that, at least in principle, we can observe locally thanks to local-discriminability of QT.

2. It seems to me that we are on a similar wavelength. I just want to emphasize that I'm using the world "state" the way we use in QT. The state is one (for the whole universe), the systems are many. The specific state is not controlled by the theory: the theory provides only its evolution.

3A. Objects are usually located in space. This doesn't mean that the space location define the object: it is a property of the object. Besides, a moving object is always the same object, it is not a different object at each different time. In this sense a teleported object is the same object moved to another place. The fact that matter is the same everywhere is the indistinguishability of identical particles in QFT.

3B. We agree here that space is made by "relations between things". For me such things are quantum systems, not objects.

Nice to talk with you, Roger

Thank you again

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Giakomo,

You are a master as a lector and writer!

You will be surprised perhaps but I am seriously thinking that holy fathers had burned heretics not in vain! I find very simple justification to it. When some stupid was killed, others have sighed with relief - the Glory of the Lord, now we got rid of malicious person!

When they killed a talented thinker (which was more often), he consoled himself before death - Glory to Lord I will rid of the stupids forever!

It will be pleasure to fight with you in open discussion, although I am very afraid it will be dialogue blind with the dumb. Anyway please just try read my history. I have smallest hope: after reading, you will go to nearest Church to pray for sins, I mean spoiling of future of your young students!

Sincerely,

George

ESSAY

report post as inappropriate

You are a master as a lector and writer!

You will be surprised perhaps but I am seriously thinking that holy fathers had burned heretics not in vain! I find very simple justification to it. When some stupid was killed, others have sighed with relief - the Glory of the Lord, now we got rid of malicious person!

When they killed a talented thinker (which was more often), he consoled himself before death - Glory to Lord I will rid of the stupids forever!

It will be pleasure to fight with you in open discussion, although I am very afraid it will be dialogue blind with the dumb. Anyway please just try read my history. I have smallest hope: after reading, you will go to nearest Church to pray for sins, I mean spoiling of future of your young students!

Sincerely,

George

ESSAY

report post as inappropriate

Dear Giacomo,

Nicely written essay, which was very comprehensible, easy to read and relevant. Interesting approach too.

All the best,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Nicely written essay, which was very comprehensible, easy to read and relevant. Interesting approach too.

All the best,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

My pleasure Giacomo. If you get chance I'd be delighted if you could look at my essay, although a little different from your approach.

Regards,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Regards,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor D'Ariano,

very interesting and well-written essay. I must read it again.

I agree with in particular about the concept of a 'state'. So, as Pauli wrote it on a letter to Heisenberg: only boring agreement.

Maybe one point is different: My knowledge of differential topology of 4-manifolds enforces me to chekc whether quantum mechanics could be have a geometric root.

If you like please look into my essay.

Best wishes

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

very interesting and well-written essay. I must read it again.

I agree with in particular about the concept of a 'state'. So, as Pauli wrote it on a letter to Heisenberg: only boring agreement.

Maybe one point is different: My knowledge of differential topology of 4-manifolds enforces me to chekc whether quantum mechanics could be have a geometric root.

If you like please look into my essay.

Best wishes

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Dear Torsen,

Thank you for your very kind appreciation.

Regarding my opinion about geometry, I strongly advise you to take a look of the new geometry coming out from the Geometric-group theory of Gromov. You would love it. Though, it may look as new-age music compared to the classical one of differential manifolds. There are still differential manifolds there. Look at the book of Misha Kapovich https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kapovich/EPR/kapovich_drutu.pd

f

You would love it!

Thank you for your very kind appreciation.

Regarding my opinion about geometry, I strongly advise you to take a look of the new geometry coming out from the Geometric-group theory of Gromov. You would love it. Though, it may look as new-age music compared to the classical one of differential manifolds. There are still differential manifolds there. Look at the book of Misha Kapovich https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kapovich/EPR/kapovich_drutu.pd

f

You would love it!

Dear Giacomo,

I agree with you, very interesting. I knew it partly because of my interest for hyerbolic geometry.

Thanks

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

I agree with you, very interesting. I knew it partly because of my interest for hyerbolic geometry.

Thanks

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dear Giacomo

If "it from Qubit" so: where Qubits generated from?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

If "it from Qubit" so: where Qubits generated from?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

The egg was long before the chicken:

the chicken is a bird and birds evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

While eggs were laid by reptiles long before this era.

(If instead the question regards "eggs laid by a chicken", then clearly chickens come first.

If instead the question regards "eggs from which a chicken is born", then clearly eggs come first.)

In all cases, the question has simple and unproblematic solution. I never understood what is the issue about eggs and chickens.

report post as inappropriate

the chicken is a bird and birds evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

While eggs were laid by reptiles long before this era.

(If instead the question regards "eggs laid by a chicken", then clearly chickens come first.

If instead the question regards "eggs from which a chicken is born", then clearly eggs come first.)

In all cases, the question has simple and unproblematic solution. I never understood what is the issue about eggs and chickens.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Giacomo,

This is one of the better essay in the lot. The particle as an eigenstate of the field is the operational aspect of the field that emerges in measurement. The field is the deeper underlying aspect of the universe, but this is something which exists everywhere even if locally defined by Wightman causality conditions --- equal time commutators etc.

I think the discrete aspect to spacetime emerges under certain types of measurements. The long baseline observations of different wavelengths of light from burstars billions of light years away have found no dispersion predicted from granular ideas about spacetime. I do think though that spacetime has what might be called an internal structure, substructures that obey certain cobordisms as with Thurston’s work in 3-dim and the results of Donaldson and others with 4-dim, that have the content of particle physics or what we might call a bit or qubit. I think whether spacetime exhibits this sort of granular or qubit-ish structure or not is a matter of a type of duality.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

This is one of the better essay in the lot. The particle as an eigenstate of the field is the operational aspect of the field that emerges in measurement. The field is the deeper underlying aspect of the universe, but this is something which exists everywhere even if locally defined by Wightman causality conditions --- equal time commutators etc.

I think the discrete aspect to spacetime emerges under certain types of measurements. The long baseline observations of different wavelengths of light from burstars billions of light years away have found no dispersion predicted from granular ideas about spacetime. I do think though that spacetime has what might be called an internal structure, substructures that obey certain cobordisms as with Thurston’s work in 3-dim and the results of Donaldson and others with 4-dim, that have the content of particle physics or what we might call a bit or qubit. I think whether spacetime exhibits this sort of granular or qubit-ish structure or not is a matter of a type of duality.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your very nice compliments.

I'm not in differential geometry, but I always wondered which are the connections with the quantum automaton, since here we have indeed a nontrivial manifold emerging at the Planck scale. And I always wondered about a simple starting connections with string-theory, there must be some. But I need a string-theorist for this, and one with an open mind. As regards the experimental data putting bounds on the Planck scale are far from being definitive, since, in my opinion, they are very theory-dependent. This is one of the topics that I'm mostly interested in.

Thank you for your interesting post.

My best regards

Mauro

Thank you for your very nice compliments.

I'm not in differential geometry, but I always wondered which are the connections with the quantum automaton, since here we have indeed a nontrivial manifold emerging at the Planck scale. And I always wondered about a simple starting connections with string-theory, there must be some. But I need a string-theorist for this, and one with an open mind. As regards the experimental data putting bounds on the Planck scale are far from being definitive, since, in my opinion, they are very theory-dependent. This is one of the topics that I'm mostly interested in.

Thank you for your interesting post.

My best regards

Mauro

Giacomo,

I have been interested in quantum codes and the related matter of sphere packing. This connects up with E8 and Leech lattice Λ24 for quantum codes. The Leech lattice embeds into a 26-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. This space has a number of interesting features, the first being it is the space of the bosonic string and the second it is automorphism group/space for the Fischer-Griess group or Monster group. The iterations of these with MINIMOG is a sort of cellular automata.

My take on string theory is that I suspect it is too deep and profound to think that nature has absolutely nothing to do with superstrings. On the other hand, I don’t believe in being dogmatic about string theory as the “TOE.” There is the minority report considered to be contrary to string theory with loop quantum gravity. The odd thing about this is that it is too closely tied to pure general relativity to be completely wrong. The prospect for an inter-relationship between string/M-theory and LQG is something I have pondered at times.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I have been interested in quantum codes and the related matter of sphere packing. This connects up with E8 and Leech lattice Λ24 for quantum codes. The Leech lattice embeds into a 26-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. This space has a number of interesting features, the first being it is the space of the bosonic string and the second it is automorphism group/space for the Fischer-Griess group or Monster group. The iterations of these with MINIMOG is a sort of cellular automata.

My take on string theory is that I suspect it is too deep and profound to think that nature has absolutely nothing to do with superstrings. On the other hand, I don’t believe in being dogmatic about string theory as the “TOE.” There is the minority report considered to be contrary to string theory with loop quantum gravity. The odd thing about this is that it is too closely tied to pure general relativity to be completely wrong. The prospect for an inter-relationship between string/M-theory and LQG is something I have pondered at times.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence

what you say about the possible connections with S/MT and cellular automata is very interesting. I should really find some string theorist explaining to me in detail. I have the book of the Becker's and Schwarz to look at, but I doubt I will find a contact point. I'd like to save some time in my theory using the experience of string theory, but I'm not sure that it will be useful, and I cannot risk to invest too much time. That's why I need somebody explaining to me things fast.

Regarding LQG, last week I met Carlo Rovelli, and, from our discussions, I got the idea that LQC maybe closer to my way of thinking. I have indeed loops, and the emergence of space-time is from a purely relational framework. The automaton is a radically new point of view, and have little contact with S/MT and LQG.

Cheers

Mauro

what you say about the possible connections with S/MT and cellular automata is very interesting. I should really find some string theorist explaining to me in detail. I have the book of the Becker's and Schwarz to look at, but I doubt I will find a contact point. I'd like to save some time in my theory using the experience of string theory, but I'm not sure that it will be useful, and I cannot risk to invest too much time. That's why I need somebody explaining to me things fast.

Regarding LQG, last week I met Carlo Rovelli, and, from our discussions, I got the idea that LQC maybe closer to my way of thinking. I have indeed loops, and the emergence of space-time is from a purely relational framework. The automaton is a radically new point of view, and have little contact with S/MT and LQG.

Cheers

Mauro

Dear Giacomo,

I don't need to be convinced by you that the "it from qubit" concept is very powerful. But you manipulate it with a great expertise. I guess you will also be attracted by my essay that deals about "it from qubit" in the contextual perspective.

Best wishes,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

I don't need to be convinced by you that the "it from qubit" concept is very powerful. But you manipulate it with a great expertise. I guess you will also be attracted by my essay that deals about "it from qubit" in the contextual perspective.

Best wishes,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Process philosophers, based upon Alfred North Whitehead, have argued for an event ontology for decades. It seems both an object ontology and an event ontology must make way for the new state ontology so useful here. As an aside-As the old English cliche goes, "You are a gentleman and a scholar."

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Darrel

interesting that Alfred North Whitehead have been the basis for arguing for an event ontology!

Anyway, you got the point.

The only thing where I cannot understand you is the "state ontology", which to me seems almost an oxymoron, since for me the state is a probability rule, and as a Bayesian, it is far from being an ontology.

But you can tell me more.

Thank you for your post.

Mauro

interesting that Alfred North Whitehead have been the basis for arguing for an event ontology!

Anyway, you got the point.

The only thing where I cannot understand you is the "state ontology", which to me seems almost an oxymoron, since for me the state is a probability rule, and as a Bayesian, it is far from being an ontology.

But you can tell me more.

Thank you for your post.

Mauro

Giacomo,

Nicely written and argued proposition with some agreeable concepts, but I still found myself worrying about where the wardrobe doors were to step back into reality at the end. There were a number of assumptions I disagreed with, particularly the Bell's theorem implications that snipped the tethers and launched us on our fascinating trip. But you may see from my essay I have good...

view entire post

Nicely written and argued proposition with some agreeable concepts, but I still found myself worrying about where the wardrobe doors were to step back into reality at the end. There were a number of assumptions I disagreed with, particularly the Bell's theorem implications that snipped the tethers and launched us on our fascinating trip. But you may see from my essay I have good...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter

thank you for your nice compliments and your thorough reading of my essay, and your suggestive post. I will look at your essay.

The only thing I want clarify here is what I mean for rigidity of QT. In the Pavia axiomatization (Chiribella, Perinotti and myself, http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v84/i1/e012311 open source) we derive QT from 6 axioms. Five of them holds also for Classical Theory, and are hard to change. The sixth axiom is hard to change in a way that gives a very different theory. We don't have a single toy theory which can account for what we see, at least in principle, and which is a small variation of QT.

Then, as regards the "mechanics", this definitely must emerge, if you want to reduce the number of your postulates.

Cheers

Mauro

thank you for your nice compliments and your thorough reading of my essay, and your suggestive post. I will look at your essay.

The only thing I want clarify here is what I mean for rigidity of QT. In the Pavia axiomatization (Chiribella, Perinotti and myself, http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v84/i1/e012311 open source) we derive QT from 6 axioms. Five of them holds also for Classical Theory, and are hard to change. The sixth axiom is hard to change in a way that gives a very different theory. We don't have a single toy theory which can account for what we see, at least in principle, and which is a small variation of QT.

Then, as regards the "mechanics", this definitely must emerge, if you want to reduce the number of your postulates.

Cheers

Mauro

Mauro,

Thank you. I look forward to studying and discussing your Pavia axiomisation. Ref your query about my conclusions, I re-post my response here for your convenience; A single 'toy theory' does emerge, with the mechanisms. My previous two essays discussed other relevant aspects (both 7th in the scoring but both overlooked for an award).

Giacomo,

Thanks for looking. A number of conclusions emerge, possibly too dramatic to even 'see' at first, like the suggestion of our flat earth being spherical, but becoming entirely self apparent and logical once understood and assimilated.

1. Some fundamental assumptions are wrong. Nature is non-commutative (no A=A!)

2. A qubit caries more information than we ask of it, hidden in a higher order.

3. The EPR paradox may then be resolved as Bell believed, without spookyness.

4. Relativity and QM are then unified with only adjusted interpretation of both.

I agree with you the change to relativity is slightly greater, but only to the assumption that the QV can only have one 'absolute' rest frame. The postulates are proven via the quantum mechanism of scattering (CFS) at c. Close analogies with all QM interpretations seem to exist, including Copenhagen, via the proper definitions and logical application of 'detection' and 'measurement'. But you may hopefully advise on that?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thank you. I look forward to studying and discussing your Pavia axiomisation. Ref your query about my conclusions, I re-post my response here for your convenience; A single 'toy theory' does emerge, with the mechanisms. My previous two essays discussed other relevant aspects (both 7th in the scoring but both overlooked for an award).

Giacomo,

Thanks for looking. A number of conclusions emerge, possibly too dramatic to even 'see' at first, like the suggestion of our flat earth being spherical, but becoming entirely self apparent and logical once understood and assimilated.

1. Some fundamental assumptions are wrong. Nature is non-commutative (no A=A!)

2. A qubit caries more information than we ask of it, hidden in a higher order.

3. The EPR paradox may then be resolved as Bell believed, without spookyness.

4. Relativity and QM are then unified with only adjusted interpretation of both.

I agree with you the change to relativity is slightly greater, but only to the assumption that the QV can only have one 'absolute' rest frame. The postulates are proven via the quantum mechanism of scattering (CFS) at c. Close analogies with all QM interpretations seem to exist, including Copenhagen, via the proper definitions and logical application of 'detection' and 'measurement'. But you may hopefully advise on that?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Giacomo,

I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from. If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by...

view entire post

I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from. If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Anton,

on my point of view about causality there is something more in my long post to Matthew Leifer. Please, refer to it.

I read superficially your essay, and it is quite clear that we are on antithetical positions.

My best regards

Mauro

on my point of view about causality there is something more in my long post to Matthew Leifer. Please, refer to it.

I read superficially your essay, and it is quite clear that we are on antithetical positions.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Mauro,

Let me just chip in a few lines here since you propose above... "My ontology is a space-time being a huge 3d digital screen made of quantum pixels".

Will the quantum pixel have 3d as well? What are the two states that the quantum pixel can occupy, that can give either a yes-or-no answer to? Do these two states lie at the "very deep bottom"?

By making up your huge space-time 3d digital screen, would the quantum pixel not have extension and 3d along with time attributes in one form or the other?

In short, though I hesitate to do so, will your quantum pixel not be 'monads', an idea that has crossed the minds of the Pythagoreans, Leibniz and even Wheeler (International Journal of Theoretical Physics June 1982, Volume 21, Issue 6-7, pp 557-572), who coined the term "elementary quantum phenomenon"? Or what can your quantum pixel do that monads or elementary quantum phenomenon cannot? I am looking at the possibility that each theoretical physicist refrains from using his own choice words to describe the same thing. Rather let us give the thing a name and discuss what and what it is or can do.

All the best. Found myself writing more than I planned.

Cheerio,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Let me just chip in a few lines here since you propose above... "My ontology is a space-time being a huge 3d digital screen made of quantum pixels".

Will the quantum pixel have 3d as well? What are the two states that the quantum pixel can occupy, that can give either a yes-or-no answer to? Do these two states lie at the "very deep bottom"?

By making up your huge space-time 3d digital screen, would the quantum pixel not have extension and 3d along with time attributes in one form or the other?

In short, though I hesitate to do so, will your quantum pixel not be 'monads', an idea that has crossed the minds of the Pythagoreans, Leibniz and even Wheeler (International Journal of Theoretical Physics June 1982, Volume 21, Issue 6-7, pp 557-572), who coined the term "elementary quantum phenomenon"? Or what can your quantum pixel do that monads or elementary quantum phenomenon cannot? I am looking at the possibility that each theoretical physicist refrains from using his own choice words to describe the same thing. Rather let us give the thing a name and discuss what and what it is or can do.

All the best. Found myself writing more than I planned.

Cheerio,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinibo,

the quantum pixels are quantum systems, such as qubits, without space-extensions, nor space-dimension, nor filling space in between. Space must emerge, not pre-exist. I really don't care much of introducing fancy names for impressing the audience. Quantum systems are quantum systems, that's it.

Thank you also for the reference of Wheeler, I think I don't have it.

My best regards

Mauro

the quantum pixels are quantum systems, such as qubits, without space-extensions, nor space-dimension, nor filling space in between. Space must emerge, not pre-exist. I really don't care much of introducing fancy names for impressing the audience. Quantum systems are quantum systems, that's it.

Thank you also for the reference of Wheeler, I think I don't have it.

My best regards

Mauro

ciao Mauro

I wondered in the essay pages and I noticed that your essay was generating much discussion.

After now looking at the essay I can see why: a particularly thought-provoking essay!!

Unfortunately on this occasion I literally could not find time to produce an essay to contribute to the debate, but even from the essay I produced for the previous competition you can imagine that I am in resonance with the assertion

that the notion of "physical object" is no longer logically tenable.

I would perhaps slightly rephrase. The luxury of relying on a naive axiomatic notion of "physical object" is no longer affordable on the current frontiers of fundamental physics. At the very least it needs a proper scientific definition. I am happy to keep, at least as long as we are on the current frontier, an axiomatic notion of "detector" (or perhaps "detection"), but all other luxuries,

first of all the spacetime-abstraction luxury but also the physical-object luxury, must be abandoned.

Congratulations on this excellent essay!

The debate might further heat up when/if Olaf Dreyer's essay will be posted: he told me he was thinking of possibly contributing an essay and from Olaf's description I would say it could be stimulatingly complementary to yours.

Giovanni

report post as inappropriate

I wondered in the essay pages and I noticed that your essay was generating much discussion.

After now looking at the essay I can see why: a particularly thought-provoking essay!!

Unfortunately on this occasion I literally could not find time to produce an essay to contribute to the debate, but even from the essay I produced for the previous competition you can imagine that I am in resonance with the assertion

that the notion of "physical object" is no longer logically tenable.

I would perhaps slightly rephrase. The luxury of relying on a naive axiomatic notion of "physical object" is no longer affordable on the current frontiers of fundamental physics. At the very least it needs a proper scientific definition. I am happy to keep, at least as long as we are on the current frontier, an axiomatic notion of "detector" (or perhaps "detection"), but all other luxuries,

first of all the spacetime-abstraction luxury but also the physical-object luxury, must be abandoned.

Congratulations on this excellent essay!

The debate might further heat up when/if Olaf Dreyer's essay will be posted: he told me he was thinking of possibly contributing an essay and from Olaf's description I would say it could be stimulatingly complementary to yours.

Giovanni

report post as inappropriate

Dear Giovanni

it is great to hear from you!

Yes! it seems that the idea of the physical-object-as-logically-untenable is gathering consensus. It seems that I succeeded in convincing many people at least to have a try of our different view of the world. The "It from Bit" is now much more than just an ideology. It is a fact! With Paolo Perinotti we succeeded in deriving the Dirac equation as emergent from just quantum systems in interaction, with the only obvious requirements of homogeneity, isotropy, locality, and unitariety. And, at the same time, we hit two pigeons with one stone, getting a unified theory including also the super-relativistic regime and the Planck scale, a theory that embodies in a single unified framework your Doubly Special Relativity with an additional invariant energy, and yours and Smolin's relative locality. With Bibeau, Bisio, Perinotti and Tosini we are now writing a paper only on these topics. It is really very exciting to see how much new physics and phenomenology can emerge from just a bunch very general of principles.

I'm sure also Olaf will like this a lot.

My best regards

Mauro

it is great to hear from you!

Yes! it seems that the idea of the physical-object-as-logically-untenable is gathering consensus. It seems that I succeeded in convincing many people at least to have a try of our different view of the world. The "It from Bit" is now much more than just an ideology. It is a fact! With Paolo Perinotti we succeeded in deriving the Dirac equation as emergent from just quantum systems in interaction, with the only obvious requirements of homogeneity, isotropy, locality, and unitariety. And, at the same time, we hit two pigeons with one stone, getting a unified theory including also the super-relativistic regime and the Planck scale, a theory that embodies in a single unified framework your Doubly Special Relativity with an additional invariant energy, and yours and Smolin's relative locality. With Bibeau, Bisio, Perinotti and Tosini we are now writing a paper only on these topics. It is really very exciting to see how much new physics and phenomenology can emerge from just a bunch very general of principles.

I'm sure also Olaf will like this a lot.

My best regards

Mauro

Mauro,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Jim,

your essay has an attractive narrative, is pleasant to read and well written.

Regarding my personal opinions on the subjects, I just like to stress that the "It from Bit" that I like of Wheeler is not the act of creation of the universe. Likewise, I'm not very fond of the Antropic principle either.

But you master to put all subjects in a quite equilibrate way.

My best regards

Mauro

your essay has an attractive narrative, is pleasant to read and well written.

Regarding my personal opinions on the subjects, I just like to stress that the "It from Bit" that I like of Wheeler is not the act of creation of the universe. Likewise, I'm not very fond of the Antropic principle either.

But you master to put all subjects in a quite equilibrate way.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear D'Ariano,

One problem I have with the idea of "It" emerging from "Qubit" is that it presents a Zeno scenario, putting us in pain of infinite regress.

How can you perform observation on THE PARTS of a holism for then it yet has parts:“local discriminability”. For me you either arrive at "locality" (the parts) via non-locality (the whole) or vice versa.

I assert that you cannot actually have the notion of a field without having the notion of an object for the field is only LESS OBJECT than some reference object.And vice versa.

It does not seem to me that we can get anywhere without actually defining the wave function (for it is that blur between the it and the bit). Hard problem, but it IS the problem. Check me out on this if you can at: "What a Wavefunction is"What a Wavefunction is.

Do your best to prove me wrong on this. It helps everyone think clearer.

Chidi Idika

report post as inappropriate

One problem I have with the idea of "It" emerging from "Qubit" is that it presents a Zeno scenario, putting us in pain of infinite regress.

How can you perform observation on THE PARTS of a holism for then it yet has parts:“local discriminability”. For me you either arrive at "locality" (the parts) via non-locality (the whole) or vice versa.

I assert that you cannot actually have the notion of a field without having the notion of an object for the field is only LESS OBJECT than some reference object.And vice versa.

It does not seem to me that we can get anywhere without actually defining the wave function (for it is that blur between the it and the bit). Hard problem, but it IS the problem. Check me out on this if you can at: "What a Wavefunction is"What a Wavefunction is.

Do your best to prove me wrong on this. It helps everyone think clearer.

Chidi Idika

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi

I don't see what the Zeno "scenario" has to do with infinite regress.

Personally I cannot follow your arguments, since you are not following what I think is the correct methodology in theoretical research. I can considered arguments that run as a mathematical proof, made with a chain of logical implications, where every assertion is circumstantiated by facts or statements that everybody shares.

I therefore will not "do my best to prove you wrong", as you ask me.

If you need somebody proving you wrong, then you should submit a paper to a scientific journal. It my happen that an anonymous referee will do the job.

My regards

Mauro

I don't see what the Zeno "scenario" has to do with infinite regress.

Personally I cannot follow your arguments, since you are not following what I think is the correct methodology in theoretical research. I can considered arguments that run as a mathematical proof, made with a chain of logical implications, where every assertion is circumstantiated by facts or statements that everybody shares.

I therefore will not "do my best to prove you wrong", as you ask me.

If you need somebody proving you wrong, then you should submit a paper to a scientific journal. It my happen that an anonymous referee will do the job.

My regards

Mauro

Wlth all due respect, prof. Mauro, but we are trying here to clarify the logical flow of your own position not mine.

The question is: how may one understand that given a "holism" ("...according to which the properties of the whole CANNOT be understood in terms of the properties of the parts.) but you still have "local discriminability" ("...namely the possibility of discriminating between any two states of the whole by performing only observations on the parts."). Trouble is: how then are these parts apparent enough for one to carry out observations on them?

You don't seem to allow that what we (the ordinary people) observe or have been observing repeatedly is what actually we get to believe IS OUT THERE and not vice versa. Meaning, we are quantum measurements going on NATURALLY.

So I say again, the question frames naturally this way.

All the best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

The question is: how may one understand that given a "holism" ("...according to which the properties of the whole CANNOT be understood in terms of the properties of the parts.) but you still have "local discriminability" ("...namely the possibility of discriminating between any two states of the whole by performing only observations on the parts."). Trouble is: how then are these parts apparent enough for one to carry out observations on them?

You don't seem to allow that what we (the ordinary people) observe or have been observing repeatedly is what actually we get to believe IS OUT THERE and not vice versa. Meaning, we are quantum measurements going on NATURALLY.

So I say again, the question frames naturally this way.

All the best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr.Giacomo D'Ariano,

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

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

Mauro, I find your criticism of the notion of object fully convincing.

Just a point for reflection: if you consider that at some level quantum gravity is relevant, you cannot even rely on a three (or four)-dimensional background over which you qbits can live.

Carlo

report post as inappropriate

Just a point for reflection: if you consider that at some level quantum gravity is relevant, you cannot even rely on a three (or four)-dimensional background over which you qbits can live.

Carlo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Carlo

indeed, I don't rely on any background. The starting point is only relational, and that's where the finitely presented infinite group comes from. The quasi-isometric embedding in R^d is a temporary restriction in seeking all possible automata. On the other hand, I conjecture that there will be no automaton e.g. in hyperbolic spaces. In any case, the relations come first, and the embedding is a property of the group, and space and SR emergence come later.

The way I expect to get gravity is through a holographic principle from the automaton in an Euclidean space, a la Jacobson-Verlinde, and in such way curved space will be emergent, as a way to describe gravity phenomenologically, as Einstein did.

indeed, I don't rely on any background. The starting point is only relational, and that's where the finitely presented infinite group comes from. The quasi-isometric embedding in R^d is a temporary restriction in seeking all possible automata. On the other hand, I conjecture that there will be no automaton e.g. in hyperbolic spaces. In any case, the relations come first, and the embedding is a property of the group, and space and SR emergence come later.

The way I expect to get gravity is through a holographic principle from the automaton in an Euclidean space, a la Jacobson-Verlinde, and in such way curved space will be emergent, as a way to describe gravity phenomenologically, as Einstein did.

Dear Mauro

This is an interesting essay, and I continue to be surprised (as you have been) about how similar, and yet different, our lines of thinking have been.

Your demolition of object is interesting. However, rather than allowing us to talk about existence of an object, an operationalist viewpoint only allows us to define an entity, such as an electron, in terms of what it does...

view entire post

This is an interesting essay, and I continue to be surprised (as you have been) about how similar, and yet different, our lines of thinking have been.

Your demolition of object is interesting. However, rather than allowing us to talk about existence of an object, an operationalist viewpoint only allows us to define an entity, such as an electron, in terms of what it does...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Kevin

thank you very much for reading my essay and for your compliments.

You are surprised by similarities between our approaches, but indeed there is almost none. The approaches looked similar at the very beginning, more than three years ago, but now we are on another planet. Just few comments. My definition of information, and in particular, of "quantum information", has a...

view entire post

thank you very much for reading my essay and for your compliments.

You are surprised by similarities between our approaches, but indeed there is almost none. The approaches looked similar at the very beginning, more than three years ago, but now we are on another planet. Just few comments. My definition of information, and in particular, of "quantum information", has a...

view entire post

Dear Mauro,

Thank you for your comments and your perspective.

Perhaps we are on different planets. Though I suspect that some of the similarities may be due to the robustness or stability of our respective theories, which Gian-Carlo Rota described in lesson #6 of his famous essay "Ten Lessons I wish I had been Taught".

I also should mention that I am very aware that Bialnycki-Birula's cellular automaton, as impressive as it is, was reverse-engineered. And I should reiterate that I very much appreciate that you are working to directly engineer the theory.

Cheers

Kevin

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your comments and your perspective.

Perhaps we are on different planets. Though I suspect that some of the similarities may be due to the robustness or stability of our respective theories, which Gian-Carlo Rota described in lesson #6 of his famous essay "Ten Lessons I wish I had been Taught".

I also should mention that I am very aware that Bialnycki-Birula's cellular automaton, as impressive as it is, was reverse-engineered. And I should reiterate that I very much appreciate that you are working to directly engineer the theory.

Cheers

Kevin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Giacomo

So far I have read two very interesting essays from the Italian contingent, yourself and from Carlo. Before all is over, I hope to find more. Good luck to all!

In my essay “Analogical Engine”, I have said somewhat grandly that: (1) “Quantum mechanics is analogical” and (2) “The Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities and a necessary condition for existence of all thoughts and things”, based on the premise “What quantum is to classical” is similar to “What analogy is to rationality.” Cognitively, I have back it up with a thought-experiment, while “deriving” a simulacrum of the Planck constant, giving a vivid and metaphorical meaning to what we are discussing here: “It from Bit”, or in my book: “The classical from the quantum”, which in the framework of my essay is about “The rational from the analogy.”

I am not a physicist and my maths are not to snuff, but I hear resonances (a phrase borrowed from Manuel) in your essay. Can you say the same if you have time to read my essay?

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

So far I have read two very interesting essays from the Italian contingent, yourself and from Carlo. Before all is over, I hope to find more. Good luck to all!

In my essay “Analogical Engine”, I have said somewhat grandly that: (1) “Quantum mechanics is analogical” and (2) “The Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities and a necessary condition for existence of all thoughts and things”, based on the premise “What quantum is to classical” is similar to “What analogy is to rationality.” Cognitively, I have back it up with a thought-experiment, while “deriving” a simulacrum of the Planck constant, giving a vivid and metaphorical meaning to what we are discussing here: “It from Bit”, or in my book: “The classical from the quantum”, which in the framework of my essay is about “The rational from the analogy.”

I am not a physicist and my maths are not to snuff, but I hear resonances (a phrase borrowed from Manuel) in your essay. Can you say the same if you have time to read my essay?

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Than

thank you for your reading and compliments. I had a look ar your essay, and I should say that I do not share many of your assertions and generally the methodology. I do appreciate your interest in physics. Unfortunately, physics is a quite hard job.

My best regards

Mauro

thank you for your reading and compliments. I had a look ar your essay, and I should say that I do not share many of your assertions and generally the methodology. I do appreciate your interest in physics. Unfortunately, physics is a quite hard job.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Mauro

Physics is hard, I know, and that’s why I adopted the ANALOGICAL method as an alternative mode of entry into it.

Analogies are ramps for people with math deficiencies to see and feel what’s going on in in physics and elsewhere. If we don’t use the analogical methods, we would be blind as a bat to all the interesting stuffs that is going on in the world of scholarsip and research.

I also think Feynman’s all-paths formulation of quantum mechanics is a confirmation (indirectly of course) of the importance of analogies in our thoughts and thinking. If I remember it correctly, Feynman himself attributed his PI formulation to an analogy he made from Dirac’s transformation equation.

It was analogy as a paradigm of duality that allows me -- a non-physics major -- to see easily and quickly that there are TWO fundamental ways of approaching quantum theory: the Hamiltonian way and the Lagrangian way. Nor was I surprised to know that elsewhere in physics, there are background-dependent and background-independent physical theories. Everything seems to be a replay of what wave is to particle from that famous double-slit experiment.

Call it what you will “It from Bit”, “It from Qubit”, “Particle from Wave”, “Classical from Quantum”, “Logic/Reason from Analogy”, we are in this Circle of Twoness.

With respect and regards

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Physics is hard, I know, and that’s why I adopted the ANALOGICAL method as an alternative mode of entry into it.

Analogies are ramps for people with math deficiencies to see and feel what’s going on in in physics and elsewhere. If we don’t use the analogical methods, we would be blind as a bat to all the interesting stuffs that is going on in the world of scholarsip and research.

I also think Feynman’s all-paths formulation of quantum mechanics is a confirmation (indirectly of course) of the importance of analogies in our thoughts and thinking. If I remember it correctly, Feynman himself attributed his PI formulation to an analogy he made from Dirac’s transformation equation.

It was analogy as a paradigm of duality that allows me -- a non-physics major -- to see easily and quickly that there are TWO fundamental ways of approaching quantum theory: the Hamiltonian way and the Lagrangian way. Nor was I surprised to know that elsewhere in physics, there are background-dependent and background-independent physical theories. Everything seems to be a replay of what wave is to particle from that famous double-slit experiment.

Call it what you will “It from Bit”, “It from Qubit”, “Particle from Wave”, “Classical from Quantum”, “Logic/Reason from Analogy”, we are in this Circle of Twoness.

With respect and regards

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Giacomo D’Ariano,

I read your, deeply but clearly thought out well written, essay with ease and enthusiasm. In which you have argued why Bit is more important for’ us’ than It, i.e., out of ‘It from Bit or ‘Bit from It’, you have chosen the former alternative and for which you have given substantial back ground material as to why we have to side with you. In the same...

view entire post

I read your, deeply but clearly thought out well written, essay with ease and enthusiasm. In which you have argued why Bit is more important for’ us’ than It, i.e., out of ‘It from Bit or ‘Bit from It’, you have chosen the former alternative and for which you have given substantial back ground material as to why we have to side with you. In the same...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sreenath

thank you very much for your very nice compliments.

In my essay, I dismounted the "It" with the main motivation of getting more attention to new alternative theoretical frameworks that I consider much more powerful. More than being interested in proving the Bit or the It what matters to me is finding the most efficient way of deriving the largest phenomenological scenario from the minimal set of principles, and I just showed how powerful the Qbit is! Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the "It" of Tejinder Singh. Bohm's has now more than 60 years, and, honestly, even though it is always suggestive, we didn't get much from it. Singh doesn't even have a unique notion of "It". Is it "the particle"? What is a particle? The hyper-realists Singh and Bassi are trying to save a "mechanical" world, making it look even stranger and weirder than the quantum one. In support of their realism they are even invoking the trace-dynamics by Stephen L. Adler. Why? To rely on authority? A year ago I was curious, and bought the book of Adler (I got it used for a small price), and honestly I found his theory laking any kind of beauty. I later discovered that almost nobody knows it.

We should seek new physics, based on solid principles, principles based on logical arguments, not on the satisfaction of our imagination. At least, we should give to new physics more opportunities to express their potentialities, which had not been expressed up to now by the realistic approaches.

Thank you again

Mauro

thank you very much for your very nice compliments.

In my essay, I dismounted the "It" with the main motivation of getting more attention to new alternative theoretical frameworks that I consider much more powerful. More than being interested in proving the Bit or the It what matters to me is finding the most efficient way of deriving the largest phenomenological scenario from the minimal set of principles, and I just showed how powerful the Qbit is! Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the "It" of Tejinder Singh. Bohm's has now more than 60 years, and, honestly, even though it is always suggestive, we didn't get much from it. Singh doesn't even have a unique notion of "It". Is it "the particle"? What is a particle? The hyper-realists Singh and Bassi are trying to save a "mechanical" world, making it look even stranger and weirder than the quantum one. In support of their realism they are even invoking the trace-dynamics by Stephen L. Adler. Why? To rely on authority? A year ago I was curious, and bought the book of Adler (I got it used for a small price), and honestly I found his theory laking any kind of beauty. I later discovered that almost nobody knows it.

We should seek new physics, based on solid principles, principles based on logical arguments, not on the satisfaction of our imagination. At least, we should give to new physics more opportunities to express their potentialities, which had not been expressed up to now by the realistic approaches.

Thank you again

Mauro

Dr. D'Ariano,

Hi. It's Roger again. Sorry for another comment. This is only peripherally related to your essay, but your essay and Olaf Dreyer's prompted me to throw it out there. It's an idea I've been thinking about for awhile relating to the superpositioning idea. It's below.

A. Suppose that there is in existence only one instance of a most fundamental existent entity, named A. A is an existent entity and represents a position. This also means there is only one position in existence. There are no entities or positions outside of A.

B. Suppose that this most fundamental existent entity, A, has the ability to generate additional existent entities, each named B1, B2, B3, etc., in order to cover its surface. Once created, these new B entities would be new positions. One can't say why these new entities were created in the positions they're in because there were no positions until after they were created.

C. Now, suppose a human mind looks back on this situation after the B entities were created. Given that it seems natural in our minds to think that space is infinitely divisible (e.g. continuous), we might think that the B entities could have been in any of an infinite number of positions around the A entity. That is, in our minds, there would be a superpositioning of possible locations for B to have been in. This seems reasonable, but it's not correct because there were no positions other than A until after the B entities were created. So, our after-the-fact imposition of a probability distribution for the possible locations of the B entities is incorrect because there were no locations other than A until after the B entities were created.

I just wanted to throw it out there in case in you might have some feedback. As before, thanks for your replies to all our posts. As an amateur thinker, I appreciate your taking us seriously!

Roger Granet

report post as inappropriate

Hi. It's Roger again. Sorry for another comment. This is only peripherally related to your essay, but your essay and Olaf Dreyer's prompted me to throw it out there. It's an idea I've been thinking about for awhile relating to the superpositioning idea. It's below.

A. Suppose that there is in existence only one instance of a most fundamental existent entity, named A. A is an existent entity and represents a position. This also means there is only one position in existence. There are no entities or positions outside of A.

B. Suppose that this most fundamental existent entity, A, has the ability to generate additional existent entities, each named B1, B2, B3, etc., in order to cover its surface. Once created, these new B entities would be new positions. One can't say why these new entities were created in the positions they're in because there were no positions until after they were created.

C. Now, suppose a human mind looks back on this situation after the B entities were created. Given that it seems natural in our minds to think that space is infinitely divisible (e.g. continuous), we might think that the B entities could have been in any of an infinite number of positions around the A entity. That is, in our minds, there would be a superpositioning of possible locations for B to have been in. This seems reasonable, but it's not correct because there were no positions other than A until after the B entities were created. So, our after-the-fact imposition of a probability distribution for the possible locations of the B entities is incorrect because there were no locations other than A until after the B entities were created.

I just wanted to throw it out there in case in you might have some feedback. As before, thanks for your replies to all our posts. As an amateur thinker, I appreciate your taking us seriously!

Roger Granet

report post as inappropriate

Dear Roger

if I understand your position, you want to figure out how can make sense the notion of "space" in the presence of just few events. The answer is: it will make no sense. Think about: what is space for you? You can move in space, you can rotate something, you can walk, look at a distance ... the whole scenario makes sense only in the presence of infinitely many events, or, what we simply call "objects" that are macroscopical and made of a huge number of tiny parts, atoms, molecules, ... Whatever is "extension" needs parts, and not just a few of them.

Therefore, to figure out what does it mean to live with few "entities" and without space, try to imagine that you are an amoeba or any single-cell organism, that has no sight, no hearing, no other sense but e.g. three different kinds of different inputs--call them "a", "b", "c"--that are binary (on/off). Suppose also that the amoeba has brain that is a small subroutine, which is able to discover relations and causal connections. Such a mini-brain would figure out a space which would look similar to a finite group.

For a space like ours, we need to figure out infinitely many potential relations, corresponding to an infinite group. Such a group will be, however, finitely generated, by few simple relations, a bunch of translations, whose number of independent ones will define the space dimension.

Have fun

Mauro

if I understand your position, you want to figure out how can make sense the notion of "space" in the presence of just few events. The answer is: it will make no sense. Think about: what is space for you? You can move in space, you can rotate something, you can walk, look at a distance ... the whole scenario makes sense only in the presence of infinitely many events, or, what we simply call "objects" that are macroscopical and made of a huge number of tiny parts, atoms, molecules, ... Whatever is "extension" needs parts, and not just a few of them.

Therefore, to figure out what does it mean to live with few "entities" and without space, try to imagine that you are an amoeba or any single-cell organism, that has no sight, no hearing, no other sense but e.g. three different kinds of different inputs--call them "a", "b", "c"--that are binary (on/off). Suppose also that the amoeba has brain that is a small subroutine, which is able to discover relations and causal connections. Such a mini-brain would figure out a space which would look similar to a finite group.

For a space like ours, we need to figure out infinitely many potential relations, corresponding to an infinite group. Such a group will be, however, finitely generated, by few simple relations, a bunch of translations, whose number of independent ones will define the space dimension.

Have fun

Mauro

Mauro,

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I wasn't trying to make sense of the notion of "space" but was just using a very small subset of a few points in space as an example to try and make sense of the notion of quantum superpositioning. Separate from this, though, I agree completely, of course, that space is much bigger than just a few points. I disagree, however, that whatever has extension needs many component parts. At the most fundamental level, I think our physical reality must be composed of some type of fundamental existent entity no matter whether that entity is called a qubit, a bit, an it, a mathematical construct, whatever. As the most fundamental of all existent entities, this entity would have no component parts. Yet, in order to physically exist and to serve as the foundation of our physical existence which has extension, this entity must itself have extension. It seems possible to me to have a single unit entity that has extension but has no component parts. Given such an entity, space would then be built out of huge, or possibly infinite, numbers of these fundamental entities with each one defining a position in space. There would, of course, be relationships between all these entities as you point out in your essay. But, to have relationships, one has to first have entities to have the relationships be between. In your game example, I think these would be the players Alice, Bob, etc. in group G.

Thanks!

Roger

report post as inappropriate

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I wasn't trying to make sense of the notion of "space" but was just using a very small subset of a few points in space as an example to try and make sense of the notion of quantum superpositioning. Separate from this, though, I agree completely, of course, that space is much bigger than just a few points. I disagree, however, that whatever has extension needs many component parts. At the most fundamental level, I think our physical reality must be composed of some type of fundamental existent entity no matter whether that entity is called a qubit, a bit, an it, a mathematical construct, whatever. As the most fundamental of all existent entities, this entity would have no component parts. Yet, in order to physically exist and to serve as the foundation of our physical existence which has extension, this entity must itself have extension. It seems possible to me to have a single unit entity that has extension but has no component parts. Given such an entity, space would then be built out of huge, or possibly infinite, numbers of these fundamental entities with each one defining a position in space. There would, of course, be relationships between all these entities as you point out in your essay. But, to have relationships, one has to first have entities to have the relationships be between. In your game example, I think these would be the players Alice, Bob, etc. in group G.

Thanks!

Roger

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mauro,

Am wondering, did you per chance omit to answer my questions of 4th july or did you CHOOSE to ignore them. You did answer every other person's question around it. But I sincerely do need to be educated by you on those issues I raised, if you don't mind.

All the best

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Am wondering, did you per chance omit to answer my questions of 4th july or did you CHOOSE to ignore them. You did answer every other person's question around it. But I sincerely do need to be educated by you on those issues I raised, if you don't mind.

All the best

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi,

I will answer to your post soon. I'm not answering sequentially, and the website has been unavailable lately.

Best

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

I will answer to your post soon. I'm not answering sequentially, and the website has been unavailable lately.

Best

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

I read a interesting comment of westy31 on http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/network-theor

y-part-28/#comment-31505 that contain a link to an interesting application of the network theory that describe Schrodinger equation, Dirac equation and Klein-Gordon equation (in space that seem curved space, and it is possible to use Clifford algebra); it is all too complex for me to evaluate it.

report post as inappropriate

y-part-28/#comment-31505 that contain a link to an interesting application of the network theory that describe Schrodinger equation, Dirac equation and Klein-Gordon equation (in space that seem curved space, and it is possible to use Clifford algebra); it is all too complex for me to evaluate it.

report post as inappropriate

Excuse me, the link is http://westy31.home.xs4all.nl/Electric.html#Harmonic.

I found these ideas on a blog of mathematical physics.

report post as inappropriate

I found these ideas on a blog of mathematical physics.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Mauro,

I really enjoyed reading your paper. Your construction seems to be extended to the higher dimensional case. However, you implicitly assume that our world seems to be in four dimension in your essay. Is it right? Or, how to evaluate the dimension on the space-time in your approach?

Best wishes,

Yutaka

report post as inappropriate

I really enjoyed reading your paper. Your construction seems to be extended to the higher dimensional case. However, you implicitly assume that our world seems to be in four dimension in your essay. Is it right? Or, how to evaluate the dimension on the space-time in your approach?

Best wishes,

Yutaka

report post as inappropriate

Hi Yutaka,

nice to hear from you.

Yes, I'm implicitly assuming the dimension in the quasi-isometric embedding in R^3. My purpose is not to understand why 3+1. Let me add here that no theory ever, even remotely, had seriously addressed such an issue.

What we may have in the future (in the evolution of this theory) is discovering new unexpected physical features that are connected to the space dimension.

My best

mauru

nice to hear from you.

Yes, I'm implicitly assuming the dimension in the quasi-isometric embedding in R^3. My purpose is not to understand why 3+1. Let me add here that no theory ever, even remotely, had seriously addressed such an issue.

What we may have in the future (in the evolution of this theory) is discovering new unexpected physical features that are connected to the space dimension.

My best

mauru

Mr D'Ariano,

the italians in the contest are not more than 5, can I ask kindly

an opinion about my essay this way i will know why I am the 5th....

My Best Regards. Giacomo Alessiani.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1903

report post as inappropriate

the italians in the contest are not more than 5, can I ask kindly

an opinion about my essay this way i will know why I am the 5th....

My Best Regards. Giacomo Alessiani.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1903

report post as inappropriate

Graceful Mr. D'Ariano,

my fear was about a completely wrong argument. i mean the core of my essay.

Really I appreciate Your soft reply.

What about the joint with the Uncertainty Principle in my essay ?

My Best Regards.

report post as inappropriate

my fear was about a completely wrong argument. i mean the core of my essay.

Really I appreciate Your soft reply.

What about the joint with the Uncertainty Principle in my essay ?

My Best Regards.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Giacomo,

Thank you for your insightful essay.

I agree with you that the It is from the Qubit, based on quantum information theory. The conditional entropy of the local observer and global quantum potential reciprocally weave the web of interactions that generates relativistic spacetime. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

Of particular interest is how continuous symmetries can be recovered from desecrate ones due to quantum interference between paths.

Best wishes,

Richard Shand

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your insightful essay.

I agree with you that the It is from the Qubit, based on quantum information theory. The conditional entropy of the local observer and global quantum potential reciprocally weave the web of interactions that generates relativistic spacetime. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

Of particular interest is how continuous symmetries can be recovered from desecrate ones due to quantum interference between paths.

Best wishes,

Richard Shand

report post as inappropriate

Dear Richard

thank you for your beautiful compliments. You got what I think is indeed the most relevant insight, namely that the nature of space-time must be intrinsically quantum if we regard it as something emergent, and not as a stage for something else. Now, my next step will be to understand the holographic principle (that you mention in your essay) within the quantum automata scenario.

My best regards

Mauro

thank you for your beautiful compliments. You got what I think is indeed the most relevant insight, namely that the nature of space-time must be intrinsically quantum if we regard it as something emergent, and not as a stage for something else. Now, my next step will be to understand the holographic principle (that you mention in your essay) within the quantum automata scenario.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Professor D'Ariano,

Thank you for a very enlightening and thoughtfully written essay. I like the fact that your points are clear and insightful, and your thesis sets out to demonstrate exactly what you claim in your abstract: the “It” is emergent from pure information, an information of special kind: quantum. The paradigm then becomes: “It from Qubit”. My essay also makes the case for information being more fundamental, and I try to put forward various questions along the way based on experiments and analysis to guide the reader to this viewpoint, but I think you demonstrate it more directly. I really liked your analysis of the qubit, and how you applied your reasoning to so many physical properties and phenomena, even to describe for example a field. And how you derived spacetime using the web game model was very much insightful. Your ideas derive a more fundamental meaning to these concepts, continuing what Einstein/Pauli did for fields originally, which itself was the next level of abstraction after Gauss. My essay also looks at the qubit, and like you I utilize Bell's inequality to support a deeper basis for my discussion of reality. This is a great topic!

Thanks again for contributing this piece, and I hope you have a chance to review and rate my essay as well - I do really appreciate feedback from people who are directly involved in fundamental physics such as yourself.

At some point I also will check out your other essays that you submitted on earlier topics.

Sincerely,

Steve Sax

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for a very enlightening and thoughtfully written essay. I like the fact that your points are clear and insightful, and your thesis sets out to demonstrate exactly what you claim in your abstract: the “It” is emergent from pure information, an information of special kind: quantum. The paradigm then becomes: “It from Qubit”. My essay also makes the case for information being more fundamental, and I try to put forward various questions along the way based on experiments and analysis to guide the reader to this viewpoint, but I think you demonstrate it more directly. I really liked your analysis of the qubit, and how you applied your reasoning to so many physical properties and phenomena, even to describe for example a field. And how you derived spacetime using the web game model was very much insightful. Your ideas derive a more fundamental meaning to these concepts, continuing what Einstein/Pauli did for fields originally, which itself was the next level of abstraction after Gauss. My essay also looks at the qubit, and like you I utilize Bell's inequality to support a deeper basis for my discussion of reality. This is a great topic!

Thanks again for contributing this piece, and I hope you have a chance to review and rate my essay as well - I do really appreciate feedback from people who are directly involved in fundamental physics such as yourself.

At some point I also will check out your other essays that you submitted on earlier topics.

Sincerely,

Steve Sax

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve

your compliments are the best I could desire. I am happy that you got exactly my points, and that you share my way of looking at physics. I downloaded your paper, and I found it very attractive. I put it in my collection, since I need to read it more closely. I found your sentence "Do the above experiments suggest information is more fundamental than physical reality,...?" very stimulating. I will definitely rate it after reading it well.

Thank you again

Mauro

your compliments are the best I could desire. I am happy that you got exactly my points, and that you share my way of looking at physics. I downloaded your paper, and I found it very attractive. I put it in my collection, since I need to read it more closely. I found your sentence "Do the above experiments suggest information is more fundamental than physical reality,...?" very stimulating. I will definitely rate it after reading it well.

Thank you again

Mauro

Mauro,

"electrons are states of the electron field,photons are states of the electromagnetic fields, neutrinos of the neutrino field,and so on. The process of demoting particles to states and introducing the notion of quantum field as the new “object” for such states is known as “second quantization”.The field is not an “object”.But is now the field an object in the usual sense? Not at all. The field is everywhere. And it is not made of matter: its states are."

I'm struggling with your densely-packed essay. How are states of qubits pure quantum software, objects, matter, HW completely becoming vaporized (paraphrasing)? States are matter rather than information or particles themselves?

Jim

Challenging essay!

report post as inappropriate

"electrons are states of the electron field,photons are states of the electromagnetic fields, neutrinos of the neutrino field,and so on. The process of demoting particles to states and introducing the notion of quantum field as the new “object” for such states is known as “second quantization”.The field is not an “object”.But is now the field an object in the usual sense? Not at all. The field is everywhere. And it is not made of matter: its states are."

I'm struggling with your densely-packed essay. How are states of qubits pure quantum software, objects, matter, HW completely becoming vaporized (paraphrasing)? States are matter rather than information or particles themselves?

Jim

Challenging essay!

report post as inappropriate

Dear James

yes, in synthesis: quantum fields are pure software, space-time and particles are emerging features, as in a huge 3d quantum-computer graphics. As you see from my essay, this is the only logical way out all the problems of quantum mechanics and of quantum field theory. Up to now I haven't seen any other way that is actually working.

My best

Mauro

yes, in synthesis: quantum fields are pure software, space-time and particles are emerging features, as in a huge 3d quantum-computer graphics. As you see from my essay, this is the only logical way out all the problems of quantum mechanics and of quantum field theory. Up to now I haven't seen any other way that is actually working.

My best

Mauro

Mauro,

I would like to hear your critical views of my essay, "It Great to be the King." It argues against the "Anthropic Principle" at a very basic level, with little mathematical anchoring.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

I would like to hear your critical views of my essay, "It Great to be the King." It argues against the "Anthropic Principle" at a very basic level, with little mathematical anchoring.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Mauro,

I discovered that I forgot to rate your essay. Our viewpoints don't match up but yours is an excellent depiction of a great concept. Did you get a chance to check mine out?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

I discovered that I forgot to rate your essay. Our viewpoints don't match up but yours is an excellent depiction of a great concept. Did you get a chance to check mine out?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Dear prof. Mauro,

How may one understand that given your "holism" ("according to which the properties of the whole CANNOT be understood in terms of the properties of the parts.) but you still have "local discriminability" which is "the possibility of discriminating between any two states of the whole by performing only observations on the parts.". It seems to me a contradiction.

Question is: how then are the parts apparent enough for one to carry out observations on them?

Regards,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

How may one understand that given your "holism" ("according to which the properties of the whole CANNOT be understood in terms of the properties of the parts.) but you still have "local discriminability" which is "the possibility of discriminating between any two states of the whole by performing only observations on the parts.". It seems to me a contradiction.

Question is: how then are the parts apparent enough for one to carry out observations on them?

Regards,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi,

the fact that "properties of the whole cannot be understood in terms of the properties of the parts" is logically unconnected with the "the possibility of discriminating between any two states of the whole by performing only observations on the parts". Indeed, take a singlet state of two qubits. It is an eigenstate of the Bell observable (four projectors, one over the singlet and three over the triplet states). The marginal single-qubit states are completely mixed. The Bell observable does not commute with any tensor product of single-qubit projectors. Thus the marginal states do not allow us to understand the state of the whole, the Bell measurement is incompatible with all properties of the parts. But you can discriminate the singlet from any other joint state by some local effect, i.e. a projection on single qubit states. For example, the singlet is perfectly discriminated by the |00> state, by simply projecting on |00> (probabilities 0 and 1 for the two states, respectively). So if such an outcome occurs you know for sure that the state is |00>.

Unfortunately quantum theory is not so intuitive. It is not my fault. You should make your own analysis more carefully.

Cheers

Mauro

the fact that "properties of the whole cannot be understood in terms of the properties of the parts" is logically unconnected with the "the possibility of discriminating between any two states of the whole by performing only observations on the parts". Indeed, take a singlet state of two qubits. It is an eigenstate of the Bell observable (four projectors, one over the singlet and three over the triplet states). The marginal single-qubit states are completely mixed. The Bell observable does not commute with any tensor product of single-qubit projectors. Thus the marginal states do not allow us to understand the state of the whole, the Bell measurement is incompatible with all properties of the parts. But you can discriminate the singlet from any other joint state by some local effect, i.e. a projection on single qubit states. For example, the singlet is perfectly discriminated by the |00> state, by simply projecting on |00> (probabilities 0 and 1 for the two states, respectively). So if such an outcome occurs you know for sure that the state is |00>.

Unfortunately quantum theory is not so intuitive. It is not my fault. You should make your own analysis more carefully.

Cheers

Mauro

Dear prof. Mauro,

Permit me. We are both in pursuit of clarity. The point I make is that in light of the present question "it from bit or bit from it" once you assume non-locality as first principle (and as defining the "it") next the burden is to show how the "Bit" EMERGES from this non-locality.

One cannot just jump to PRESUME the existence of "locality" on which to carry out experiments.

Best regards,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Permit me. We are both in pursuit of clarity. The point I make is that in light of the present question "it from bit or bit from it" once you assume non-locality as first principle (and as defining the "it") next the burden is to show how the "Bit" EMERGES from this non-locality.

One cannot just jump to PRESUME the existence of "locality" on which to carry out experiments.

Best regards,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi

I cannot follow your reasoning. I'm not assuming nonlocality: it is an experimental fact. I'm not assuming the It. I showed logical inconsistencies of the It, and showed as they be cured with the It emerging from the Qbit. I think I did my job. Showing the bit as emergent is trivial: even my 7 years old daughter can see it by using a normal computer. The "Bit from It" is trivial. What is non trivial is the "It from Bit".

Best

Mauro

I cannot follow your reasoning. I'm not assuming nonlocality: it is an experimental fact. I'm not assuming the It. I showed logical inconsistencies of the It, and showed as they be cured with the It emerging from the Qbit. I think I did my job. Showing the bit as emergent is trivial: even my 7 years old daughter can see it by using a normal computer. The "Bit from It" is trivial. What is non trivial is the "It from Bit".

Best

Mauro

Mauro,

I've reposted this reply to you from Bill McHarris's blog.

No 'changing meanings'. Theorems are indeed theorems, but they're all included in the greater 'theorem' that all science is provisional and no 'absolute' proof of anything exists. Bell uses assumptions just as all theorems do. Even the most solid foundational 'Laws' of Physics can be violated. Look what happens to...

view entire post

I've reposted this reply to you from Bill McHarris's blog.

No 'changing meanings'. Theorems are indeed theorems, but they're all included in the greater 'theorem' that all science is provisional and no 'absolute' proof of anything exists. Bell uses assumptions just as all theorems do. Even the most solid foundational 'Laws' of Physics can be violated. Look what happens to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter

I do not have sufficient elements from your post to express a well motivated judgment. I anyway see a serious problem. Your system is classical, you cannot have complementary observables, hence you cannot have violation of Clauser Horn Shimony Holt inequality [there is a very short proof in the paper by Wolf et. al PRL 103, 230402 (2009)]. It is not matter of assumptions. Anyway, it would be a too long discussion. I had many of these in the past, many authors claimed violations of Bell inequalities by local realistic theories, no one ever really succeeded in getting the consensus. I wish you my best to succeed: unfortunately, the burden is entirely yours (or better of Bill).

My best regards

Mauro

I do not have sufficient elements from your post to express a well motivated judgment. I anyway see a serious problem. Your system is classical, you cannot have complementary observables, hence you cannot have violation of Clauser Horn Shimony Holt inequality [there is a very short proof in the paper by Wolf et. al PRL 103, 230402 (2009)]. It is not matter of assumptions. Anyway, it would be a too long discussion. I had many of these in the past, many authors claimed violations of Bell inequalities by local realistic theories, no one ever really succeeded in getting the consensus. I wish you my best to succeed: unfortunately, the burden is entirely yours (or better of Bill).

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Mauro,

Wow!

Fantastico!

Here is your declaration that the states of Qbit is Existence: "Therefore, we are left with states of qubits, namely pure quantum software: objects, matter, hardware, completely became vaporized." If you read my essay Child if Qbit in time, we are completely in agreement with the above statement. I go even further if I may say that I declared: All things are one Qbit. In KQID, everything emerges from one singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects Einstein complex coordinates( Einstein triangles similar to Pythagorean triangles) on the event horizon of our Multiverse as Minkowski Null geodesics Lm in zeroth dimension that instantaneously project those coordinates in the bulk ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) as the KQID relativity Multiverse. As a bonus, KQID calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse with the upper bound numbers ≤ 1.523 x 10^-153Pm/Pv. and how many bits are they in our Multiverse is the lower bound numbers ≥ 6.3 x 10^153 bits. I believe KQID is the only theory out there that has made the above calculations and predictions.

I rated the superb work according. Much more complex and sophisticated than the one I could portray. We do have the same worldview. I am also a realist, positivist, operationalist and dreamer as you might label. Let us work together if possible. Please rate and comment my essay Child of Qbit in time.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Wow!

Fantastico!

Here is your declaration that the states of Qbit is Existence: "Therefore, we are left with states of qubits, namely pure quantum software: objects, matter, hardware, completely became vaporized." If you read my essay Child if Qbit in time, we are completely in agreement with the above statement. I go even further if I may say that I declared: All things are one Qbit. In KQID, everything emerges from one singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects Einstein complex coordinates( Einstein triangles similar to Pythagorean triangles) on the event horizon of our Multiverse as Minkowski Null geodesics Lm in zeroth dimension that instantaneously project those coordinates in the bulk ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) as the KQID relativity Multiverse. As a bonus, KQID calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse with the upper bound numbers ≤ 1.523 x 10^-153Pm/Pv. and how many bits are they in our Multiverse is the lower bound numbers ≥ 6.3 x 10^153 bits. I believe KQID is the only theory out there that has made the above calculations and predictions.

I rated the superb work according. Much more complex and sophisticated than the one I could portray. We do have the same worldview. I am also a realist, positivist, operationalist and dreamer as you might label. Let us work together if possible. Please rate and comment my essay Child of Qbit in time.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Leo,

thank you for your enthusiastic support! Yes, it seems that we share many points, but we have a serious departure, when you say that there everything originated from a single Qbit. I personally cannot justify creation from nothing, I don't believe in the miracles of singularities. And, I don't like singularities in physics. I started hating them when as a undergraduate I discover how simple is to "prove" that 1=2 using infinities. Sorry, this is just a joke.

Anyway, thank you again for your marvelous compliments.

I wish you the best.

Mauro

thank you for your enthusiastic support! Yes, it seems that we share many points, but we have a serious departure, when you say that there everything originated from a single Qbit. I personally cannot justify creation from nothing, I don't believe in the miracles of singularities. And, I don't like singularities in physics. I started hating them when as a undergraduate I discover how simple is to "prove" that 1=2 using infinities. Sorry, this is just a joke.

Anyway, thank you again for your marvelous compliments.

I wish you the best.

Mauro

Dear Giacomo. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mauro,

Two weeks ago [July3, 2013 @ 23:31 GMT above], I raised several serious matters that go to the heart of your essay. Some examples follow:

1. "In that my theory is wholly local and realistic AND non-contextual, you can see that it is a challenge to many interpretations, not just yours."

2. I expressed the desire to "have you and your team address the high-school maths and logic on which my theory is based. Given that my results are fully supported experimentally, such action would of course challenge your opinion 'that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little.' " NB: One small change is the elimination of COLLAPSE; another justifies LOCAL-REALISM in line with Einstein's ideas on LOCALITY.

3. "But it is from such challenges that science progresses -- and the change that I make to Quantum Theory is very small indeed. Yet it is enough to eliminate the postulate that you suggest distinguishes the Quantum from the Classical; for that change relates to entanglement (after Schroedinger) and the measurement process (after von Neumann)."

In that no error has yet been identified in my Essay (despite my repeated requests for critical comments), I would welcome the addition of your comments to my blog.

Indeed: I'd have thought that your many fans, even the Judges, might be interested to see your formal dismissal of a matter which you apparently deem trivial (given your initial response to my correspondence above).

PS: If you will not be responding to such challenges as above, please so advise and I'll not trouble you again.

Sincerely; Gordon Watson.

report post as inappropriate

Two weeks ago [July3, 2013 @ 23:31 GMT above], I raised several serious matters that go to the heart of your essay. Some examples follow:

1. "In that my theory is wholly local and realistic AND non-contextual, you can see that it is a challenge to many interpretations, not just yours."

2. I expressed the desire to "have you and your team address the high-school maths and logic on which my theory is based. Given that my results are fully supported experimentally, such action would of course challenge your opinion 'that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little.' " NB: One small change is the elimination of COLLAPSE; another justifies LOCAL-REALISM in line with Einstein's ideas on LOCALITY.

3. "But it is from such challenges that science progresses -- and the change that I make to Quantum Theory is very small indeed. Yet it is enough to eliminate the postulate that you suggest distinguishes the Quantum from the Classical; for that change relates to entanglement (after Schroedinger) and the measurement process (after von Neumann)."

In that no error has yet been identified in my Essay (despite my repeated requests for critical comments), I would welcome the addition of your comments to my blog.

Indeed: I'd have thought that your many fans, even the Judges, might be interested to see your formal dismissal of a matter which you apparently deem trivial (given your initial response to my correspondence above).

PS: If you will not be responding to such challenges as above, please so advise and I'll not trouble you again.

Sincerely; Gordon Watson.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gordon,

sorry, but our points of view are clearly in contraposition. Apart from this, you will understand that we are not here for refereeing papers. I strongly suggest you to consider a peer reviewed journal for this.

My best regards

Mauro

sorry, but our points of view are clearly in contraposition. Apart from this, you will understand that we are not here for refereeing papers. I strongly suggest you to consider a peer reviewed journal for this.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Mauro,

Given that my Essay proposed a small change to quantum theory -- eliminating "collapse" -- I challenged your expressed opinion "that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little."

Thinking that this would be the best place to discuss our differences, and given your status as an FQXi-member, I'm naturally disappointed at your continuing avoidance of the issue.

For the record, and doubting that our views are in contraposition, I did not request you to referee my essay.

Sincerely; Gordon Watson.

report post as inappropriate

Given that my Essay proposed a small change to quantum theory -- eliminating "collapse" -- I challenged your expressed opinion "that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little."

Thinking that this would be the best place to discuss our differences, and given your status as an FQXi-member, I'm naturally disappointed at your continuing avoidance of the issue.

For the record, and doubting that our views are in contraposition, I did not request you to referee my essay.

Sincerely; Gordon Watson.

report post as inappropriate

Sorry Gordon

before embarking in a study I need to have good reasons. I could use some of my spare time, but I'm currently traveling from Italy to Chicago, and am very very busy with a number of commitments.

I hope I will find some time for reading carefully, at least one of your theorems, within a couple of weeks.

I hope you will understand

Cheers

Mauro

before embarking in a study I need to have good reasons. I could use some of my spare time, but I'm currently traveling from Italy to Chicago, and am very very busy with a number of commitments.

I hope I will find some time for reading carefully, at least one of your theorems, within a couple of weeks.

I hope you will understand

Cheers

Mauro

Dear Mauro,

I previously rated your essay as "first class", I think that we have similar views. You said in your answer to Leo above:

"I personally cannot justify creation from nothing, I don't believe in the miracles of singularities. And, I don't like singularities in physics"

I have got the same opinion (I don't like singularities) but I have found a simple solution to this problem. Please have a look at my essay and let me know what you think. If you have time you can read the complete theory here.

It is all written in very simple terms (I am not a physicist) but maybe you will find one or two interesting ideas.

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I previously rated your essay as "first class", I think that we have similar views. You said in your answer to Leo above:

"I personally cannot justify creation from nothing, I don't believe in the miracles of singularities. And, I don't like singularities in physics"

I have got the same opinion (I don't like singularities) but I have found a simple solution to this problem. Please have a look at my essay and let me know what you think. If you have time you can read the complete theory here.

It is all written in very simple terms (I am not a physicist) but maybe you will find one or two interesting ideas.

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Patrick,

thank you very much for your compliments and your rating. I read your idea in your essay about the state of non-existence, but it cannot work. The system supporting the state must logically exists, and has different states, say two of them for the classical bit. Somebody in the past also considered the case of a system that can or cannot exist, but this needs an additional state, i.e. the bit becomes a kind of a "trit".

Thank you again,

My best regards

Mauro

thank you very much for your compliments and your rating. I read your idea in your essay about the state of non-existence, but it cannot work. The system supporting the state must logically exists, and has different states, say two of them for the classical bit. Somebody in the past also considered the case of a system that can or cannot exist, but this needs an additional state, i.e. the bit becomes a kind of a "trit".

Thank you again,

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Mauro,

I think that you have stopped reading my essay when you saw that I started with only two states (existence and non-existence).

Please read it further, at least read the "evolution of a 3D world" paragraph, and you will see that the "bit" seen by an internal observer is determined by the state of two successive layers of bits, this, in a certain way, will give you the 3rd...

view entire post

I think that you have stopped reading my essay when you saw that I started with only two states (existence and non-existence).

Please read it further, at least read the "evolution of a 3D world" paragraph, and you will see that the "bit" seen by an internal observer is determined by the state of two successive layers of bits, this, in a certain way, will give you the 3rd...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Patrick,

I saw your essay, but I cannot follow the logic of your derivation. I also saw your website, with all the quantities that to compute up to six digits. I will check myself. Unfortunately I'm currently traveling for work, and I will be able to do this in a couple of weeks.

Best wishes

Mauro

I saw your essay, but I cannot follow the logic of your derivation. I also saw your website, with all the quantities that to compute up to six digits. I will check myself. Unfortunately I'm currently traveling for work, and I will be able to do this in a couple of weeks.

Best wishes

Mauro

Dear Giacomo,

Though ‘It from Qubit’ is true in particle scenario it is inconsistent with information continuum, as the observations in this scenario is probabilistic rather than realistic. Informationalism indicates the continuum nature of information and thus a string-matter continuum scenario is recommended to resolve this information paradox.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Though ‘It from Qubit’ is true in particle scenario it is inconsistent with information continuum, as the observations in this scenario is probabilistic rather than realistic. Informationalism indicates the continuum nature of information and thus a string-matter continuum scenario is recommended to resolve this information paradox.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jayakar,

the fact that information has an intrinsic probabilistic nature, has nothing to do with the countable nature of the (q)bits. We want to see now what this new paradigm can tell us more than what continuous field theory (including string theory) has already said. It is very promising: let's it have a try.

My best regards

Mauro

the fact that information has an intrinsic probabilistic nature, has nothing to do with the countable nature of the (q)bits. We want to see now what this new paradigm can tell us more than what continuous field theory (including string theory) has already said. It is very promising: let's it have a try.

My best regards

Mauro

Caro professore D'Ariano,

mille grazie per aver condiviso la sua bella mente con noi. (I'm afraid my written Italian stops here -- but I can talk :)

I would like to bring your attention to the beautiful and short, almost like a theorem, essay by Maria Carrillo-Ruiz, who also shows how cellular automata can be linked to the concept of emergence. In the context of ontological monism...

view entire post

mille grazie per aver condiviso la sua bella mente con noi. (I'm afraid my written Italian stops here -- but I can talk :)

I would like to bring your attention to the beautiful and short, almost like a theorem, essay by Maria Carrillo-Ruiz, who also shows how cellular automata can be linked to the concept of emergence. In the context of ontological monism...

view entire post

post approved

Dear Giacomo,

As a realist, I suppose I fell within the main targets of your essay, and you certainly got off to a great start by granting (eloquently!) how strange your view must look to a realist like me. So I really tried to follow your logic with an open mind, wondering where I might be impelled to give up on reality.

But since my preferred ontology is that of classical fields, not particles, I never really felt that you engaged with my position... I suppose if you had a few more pages you might have addressed classical fields as well. Is there any brief argument you might have to share on the matter?

My particular target was also missed when you got to holism, as you described holistic descriptions of entities at different places *at the same time*, rather than an even-more-holistic description of histories throughout spacetime. In the last contest I tried to argue that this restriction to evolving-time-slices (no matter how spatially-holistic) is still a remnant of the reductionist "Newtonian Schema" (as Smolin has dubbed it), so I didn't find it particularly surprising that you think those two stories are still compatible.

You didn't quite say it, but it seemed like you felt that your account of reductionism was inherently linked to the realist viewpoint. Is this true? If so, I suppose that's another reason why your arguments didn't really speak to me, as my preferred view of all-at-once realism doesn't reduce to a story that makes much sense when viewed in such a dynamic, slice-by-slice framework. (My view is much more aligned with the path integral.)

Of course, your essay was well crafted and beautifully written, and it seems (from above) that you found plenty of targets elsewhere. Excellent work!

Best Regards,

Ken

report post as inappropriate

As a realist, I suppose I fell within the main targets of your essay, and you certainly got off to a great start by granting (eloquently!) how strange your view must look to a realist like me. So I really tried to follow your logic with an open mind, wondering where I might be impelled to give up on reality.

But since my preferred ontology is that of classical fields, not particles, I never really felt that you engaged with my position... I suppose if you had a few more pages you might have addressed classical fields as well. Is there any brief argument you might have to share on the matter?

My particular target was also missed when you got to holism, as you described holistic descriptions of entities at different places *at the same time*, rather than an even-more-holistic description of histories throughout spacetime. In the last contest I tried to argue that this restriction to evolving-time-slices (no matter how spatially-holistic) is still a remnant of the reductionist "Newtonian Schema" (as Smolin has dubbed it), so I didn't find it particularly surprising that you think those two stories are still compatible.

You didn't quite say it, but it seemed like you felt that your account of reductionism was inherently linked to the realist viewpoint. Is this true? If so, I suppose that's another reason why your arguments didn't really speak to me, as my preferred view of all-at-once realism doesn't reduce to a story that makes much sense when viewed in such a dynamic, slice-by-slice framework. (My view is much more aligned with the path integral.)

Of course, your essay was well crafted and beautifully written, and it seems (from above) that you found plenty of targets elsewhere. Excellent work!

Best Regards,

Ken

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ken,

I'm happy that I succeeded in getting a realist follow my logic, at least for a while. Now, coming to "field as an ontology", which ontology is that? Very funny, don't you think? I know that there are some quantum field theorists that like this ontology, but it is more a matter of fixing logical problems of QFT, most arising from the continuum and from the localization issue....

view entire post

I'm happy that I succeeded in getting a realist follow my logic, at least for a while. Now, coming to "field as an ontology", which ontology is that? Very funny, don't you think? I know that there are some quantum field theorists that like this ontology, but it is more a matter of fixing logical problems of QFT, most arising from the continuum and from the localization issue....

view entire post

Dear Giacomo,

The main reason for joining this contest was not to win, but to see if I can get any professional physicist with interest in foundational issues, to evaluate my idea. I appreciate any criticism no matter how harsh, although I do prefer constructive ones. I have rated you fairly high ( I follow up on your work regularly in FQXI), but as I said I don't care for rating mine, but that is your prerogative. I will also ask you some basic questions about your theory a bit later.

Many thanks

Adel

report post as inappropriate

The main reason for joining this contest was not to win, but to see if I can get any professional physicist with interest in foundational issues, to evaluate my idea. I appreciate any criticism no matter how harsh, although I do prefer constructive ones. I have rated you fairly high ( I follow up on your work regularly in FQXI), but as I said I don't care for rating mine, but that is your prerogative. I will also ask you some basic questions about your theory a bit later.

Many thanks

Adel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel

I have seen your essay, it is full of simulations and results from your theory. But, unfortunately, there are not for me sufficient elements to understand even your framework.

In any case, an easier task for me would be to answer to questions about my theory. You are welcome to ask.

With my best wishes.

Mauro

I have seen your essay, it is full of simulations and results from your theory. But, unfortunately, there are not for me sufficient elements to understand even your framework.

In any case, an easier task for me would be to answer to questions about my theory. You are welcome to ask.

With my best wishes.

Mauro

Giacomo,

You obviously have a talent for conveying and contrasting creative ideas. Your explanation within Plato's cave left me a bit confused. It would seem that deciding to be a pragmatist and accepting hidden variables is a difficult thing to do. It seems to me that some explanatory tools, even though they are recognized as just tools, are summarily rejected. What do you mean that Ernst Mach was proven wrong about the existence of atoms? I had not run across this yet so any references towards his thoughts on that would be appreciated.

I am trying to develop a metric theory of Gunnar Nordstroem's gravitational theory based on a modification of calculus, meaning that matter and energy are integrals (information), which we process as derivatives (bits). You can find it here. Any thoughts your creative mind might have would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

You obviously have a talent for conveying and contrasting creative ideas. Your explanation within Plato's cave left me a bit confused. It would seem that deciding to be a pragmatist and accepting hidden variables is a difficult thing to do. It seems to me that some explanatory tools, even though they are recognized as just tools, are summarily rejected. What do you mean that Ernst Mach was proven wrong about the existence of atoms? I had not run across this yet so any references towards his thoughts on that would be appreciated.

I am trying to develop a metric theory of Gunnar Nordstroem's gravitational theory based on a modification of calculus, meaning that matter and energy are integrals (information), which we process as derivatives (bits). You can find it here. Any thoughts your creative mind might have would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jeff

thank you for your compliments. Yes, if you are a pragmatist, you don't care too much about ontic hidden variables: you care about ontologies that have a scientific value as explanatory tools. That Ernst Mach, being an operationalist, was against the notion of "atom" is so well known that it is almost a cliché. It can be found on any book (just look on wikipedia for references). It is even often said that Mach was the one who drove Ludwig Boltzman to his suicide (which is probably not true). I had a look at your manuscript, but I should say that I'm still too far from your problems. I'm only at the Dirac equation and SR, not gravity and GR. Gravity will come later. I have some ideas in mind, for a gravity that emerges from the automaton as a quantum thermodynamic effect. I hope I will be able to tell you more next year.

My best regards

and thank you for your interest

Mauro

thank you for your compliments. Yes, if you are a pragmatist, you don't care too much about ontic hidden variables: you care about ontologies that have a scientific value as explanatory tools. That Ernst Mach, being an operationalist, was against the notion of "atom" is so well known that it is almost a cliché. It can be found on any book (just look on wikipedia for references). It is even often said that Mach was the one who drove Ludwig Boltzman to his suicide (which is probably not true). I had a look at your manuscript, but I should say that I'm still too far from your problems. I'm only at the Dirac equation and SR, not gravity and GR. Gravity will come later. I have some ideas in mind, for a gravity that emerges from the automaton as a quantum thermodynamic effect. I hope I will be able to tell you more next year.

My best regards

and thank you for your interest

Mauro

Dear Giacomo,

Wow! This, in my humble opinion, is the best essay I've read so far. It is so well written and comprehensible, yet you made numerous deep observations. I'm tempted to re-quote to you much of your essay, but I'll limit myself to just a few sections (after all, you wrote it!).

“It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of pure information. The term “information” sounds vague, spiritualistic, against the attitude of concreteness that a scientist should conform to.” So true! Even scientists who are very open-minded understandably find it difficult to overcome concepts that have been deeply ingrained. It's not a criticism - simply an observation (an operationalist perspective!)

“Quantum Mechanics has taught us that we must change our way of thinking about “realism”, and that this cannot be synonymous of “materialism”.” I couldn't agree more. And I don't think that it would take that much of a shift to gain a different perspective.

"What matters is our ability of making correct predictions, not of describing what is out there as it is – a nonsense, since nobody can check it for us. We only need to describe logically and efficiently what we see, and for such purpose we conveniently create appropriate “ontologies”, which nonetheless are just tools for depicting mechanisms in our mind.”

Yes! Our view of what's 'out there' will always be limited, and what's 'out there' is constantly changing. So we need to, as best as we can, utilize our minds as the tools they're supposed to be (and get our minds to mind 'us' rather than the other way around!) and shape our thinking around what we can logically and efficiently see and describe such observations in a manner our minds can comprehend and make sense of.

Thank you so much for your contribution. It's the best I've read so far!

Sincerely,

Ralph

report post as inappropriate

Wow! This, in my humble opinion, is the best essay I've read so far. It is so well written and comprehensible, yet you made numerous deep observations. I'm tempted to re-quote to you much of your essay, but I'll limit myself to just a few sections (after all, you wrote it!).

“It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of pure information. The term “information” sounds vague, spiritualistic, against the attitude of concreteness that a scientist should conform to.” So true! Even scientists who are very open-minded understandably find it difficult to overcome concepts that have been deeply ingrained. It's not a criticism - simply an observation (an operationalist perspective!)

“Quantum Mechanics has taught us that we must change our way of thinking about “realism”, and that this cannot be synonymous of “materialism”.” I couldn't agree more. And I don't think that it would take that much of a shift to gain a different perspective.

"What matters is our ability of making correct predictions, not of describing what is out there as it is – a nonsense, since nobody can check it for us. We only need to describe logically and efficiently what we see, and for such purpose we conveniently create appropriate “ontologies”, which nonetheless are just tools for depicting mechanisms in our mind.”

Yes! Our view of what's 'out there' will always be limited, and what's 'out there' is constantly changing. So we need to, as best as we can, utilize our minds as the tools they're supposed to be (and get our minds to mind 'us' rather than the other way around!) and shape our thinking around what we can logically and efficiently see and describe such observations in a manner our minds can comprehend and make sense of.

Thank you so much for your contribution. It's the best I've read so far!

Sincerely,

Ralph

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ralph

thank you very much for your marvelous compliments. I really appreciate them. I'm happy that you share my point of view so closely. I read your essay, which is full of enthusiasm and positive thinking, which explains your success, especially with with the Public.

I'm pursuing the information paradigm, because I am convinced (and have already proved it in some relevant situation, as for the Dirac equation) that is going to reveal us great new physics.

With my best regards

and thank you again for your sincere compliments

Mauro

thank you very much for your marvelous compliments. I really appreciate them. I'm happy that you share my point of view so closely. I read your essay, which is full of enthusiasm and positive thinking, which explains your success, especially with with the Public.

I'm pursuing the information paradigm, because I am convinced (and have already proved it in some relevant situation, as for the Dirac equation) that is going to reveal us great new physics.

With my best regards

and thank you again for your sincere compliments

Mauro

Dear Ralph

thank you very much for your marvelous compliments. I really appreciate them. I'm happy that you share my point of view so closely. I read your essay, which is full of enthusiasm and positive thinking, which explains your success, especially with with the Public.

I'm pursuing the information paradigm, because I am convinced (and have already proved it in some relevant situation, as for the Dirac equation) that is going to reveal us great new physics.

With my best regards

and thank you again for your sincere compliments

Mauro

thank you very much for your marvelous compliments. I really appreciate them. I'm happy that you share my point of view so closely. I read your essay, which is full of enthusiasm and positive thinking, which explains your success, especially with with the Public.

I'm pursuing the information paradigm, because I am convinced (and have already proved it in some relevant situation, as for the Dirac equation) that is going to reveal us great new physics.

With my best regards

and thank you again for your sincere compliments

Mauro

Dear Giacomo,

On june 27 I wrote a short post on your excellent submission.

Forgive for being cheeky, I understand that you have lots of things to do, but I am really curious about your perception of the parallels in our thinking, of course there are differences but I think we both try to come to a new perception of reality.

here is the link to my essay

(The Quest for the Primal Sequence)

respectfully

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

On june 27 I wrote a short post on your excellent submission.

Forgive for being cheeky, I understand that you have lots of things to do, but I am really curious about your perception of the parallels in our thinking, of course there are differences but I think we both try to come to a new perception of reality.

here is the link to my essay

(The Quest for the Primal Sequence)

respectfully

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Wilhelmus,

philosophically there maybe some parallels between your an my essays, though I don't like the"participatory" universe of Wheeler so much. However, the main departure point is a matter of philosophy of science. For me what really matters is the straightforward connection between a set of (precisely stated and almost unavoidable) principles and the physics that originates from them. As in the dream of the sixth problem of Hilbert, I try to axiomatize physics, and my axioms are of informational nature. This is the case of the Pavia axiomatization of Quantum Theory [Phys. Rev A 84 012311 (2011)], and now I add locality, homogeneity, isotropy, namely minimal algorithmic complexity. It is astonishing of how much physics you can derive from them (you have not seen the end yet!) Also my "vaporization of the object" follows a logical path of this kind. And, the local-discriminability axiom of Quantum Theory in the Pavia axiomatization is definitely an axiom that Hilbert would have loved.

My best regards

Mauro

philosophically there maybe some parallels between your an my essays, though I don't like the"participatory" universe of Wheeler so much. However, the main departure point is a matter of philosophy of science. For me what really matters is the straightforward connection between a set of (precisely stated and almost unavoidable) principles and the physics that originates from them. As in the dream of the sixth problem of Hilbert, I try to axiomatize physics, and my axioms are of informational nature. This is the case of the Pavia axiomatization of Quantum Theory [Phys. Rev A 84 012311 (2011)], and now I add locality, homogeneity, isotropy, namely minimal algorithmic complexity. It is astonishing of how much physics you can derive from them (you have not seen the end yet!) Also my "vaporization of the object" follows a logical path of this kind. And, the local-discriminability axiom of Quantum Theory in the Pavia axiomatization is definitely an axiom that Hilbert would have loved.

My best regards

Mauro

Hi D'Ariano,

When observation is stressed as the starting point for theory building, is there prediction power in a resulting theory for phenomenon not yet observed? On would think that a theory matching the facts with extreme and fantastic precision might miss some underlying factor and come into conflict when new observations are mad that the theory was not based on. so Is it validated only by fitting observational data?

Also, do you have a short hand mathematical example of the statement "it anticipates a bound "for the rest-mass for the Dirac particle?"

have the best,

Amos.

report post as inappropriate

When observation is stressed as the starting point for theory building, is there prediction power in a resulting theory for phenomenon not yet observed? On would think that a theory matching the facts with extreme and fantastic precision might miss some underlying factor and come into conflict when new observations are mad that the theory was not based on. so Is it validated only by fitting observational data?

Also, do you have a short hand mathematical example of the statement "it anticipates a bound "for the rest-mass for the Dirac particle?"

have the best,

Amos.

report post as inappropriate

Dear William

thank you for raising these issues. Indeed, in my framework "observation" is stressed only in the sense that I want to make clear the difference between theoretical notions and observed events. Usually we confuse the two. For example, we take the notion of particle as a concrete object, whereas it is just a theoretical one.

Regarding the bound for the mass, this is something that I discovered more than three years ago on the d=1 Dirac automaton (see arXiv), and can be found in some proceedings and published recently in PLA A 376 697 (2012). It is now confirmed with the automaton in 3d. It is just a consequence of unitariety. In the row (or column) of the unitary matrix there is a term that plays the role of the inertial mass in the relativistic limit of small wave vectors, and, due to normalization of the row, must be bounded by 1. In the digital-analog conversion one has this bound corresponding to the Planck mass. See also my 2011 and 2012 FQXi essays. A consequence of unitariety is also the fact that one has a "refraction index for vacuum" depending on the inertial mass, and the speed goes to zero at the Planck mass. Very like the mini-black-hole, but without using GR!

My best regards

Mauro

thank you for raising these issues. Indeed, in my framework "observation" is stressed only in the sense that I want to make clear the difference between theoretical notions and observed events. Usually we confuse the two. For example, we take the notion of particle as a concrete object, whereas it is just a theoretical one.

Regarding the bound for the mass, this is something that I discovered more than three years ago on the d=1 Dirac automaton (see arXiv), and can be found in some proceedings and published recently in PLA A 376 697 (2012). It is now confirmed with the automaton in 3d. It is just a consequence of unitariety. In the row (or column) of the unitary matrix there is a term that plays the role of the inertial mass in the relativistic limit of small wave vectors, and, due to normalization of the row, must be bounded by 1. In the digital-analog conversion one has this bound corresponding to the Planck mass. See also my 2011 and 2012 FQXi essays. A consequence of unitariety is also the fact that one has a "refraction index for vacuum" depending on the inertial mass, and the speed goes to zero at the Planck mass. Very like the mini-black-hole, but without using GR!

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Professor Giacomo

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...

view entire post

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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Than

I'm happy that we both think, as Richard Feynman did, that "simplicity" is the key of theoretical research.

As a matter of fact, my general principle at the basis of the quantum automaton is the minimization of its quantum algorithmic complexity. Locality, homogeneity, and isotropy reduce enormously the algorithmic complexity of the physical law represented by the automaton.

My best regards

Mauro

I'm happy that we both think, as Richard Feynman did, that "simplicity" is the key of theoretical research.

As a matter of fact, my general principle at the basis of the quantum automaton is the minimization of its quantum algorithmic complexity. Locality, homogeneity, and isotropy reduce enormously the algorithmic complexity of the physical law represented by the automaton.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Giacomo,

We corresponded before and I appreciate your frankness and your difficult to shake relational views of space. As I am not a professional physicist and just to be clear and learn from professionals: Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blogmy blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

We corresponded before and I appreciate your frankness and your difficult to shake relational views of space. As I am not a professional physicist and just to be clear and learn from professionals: Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blogmy blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinibo

you are touching the apocryphal principle of Mach, which Einstein was so fond of, but, unfortunately he couldn't achieve in his GR. Its space-time metric played the role of a kind of ether. In his Lecture in Leiden he said that he believed that the rotating Newton bucket would have the water pushing up the bucket walls, even in an empty universe (see the masterpiece Einstein's biography of Walter Isaacson). Do we have the absolute inertial frame, or even the rest frame, as an ether? In practice we have an ether: it is the background radiation. It is a frame with respect to which we can check that we are moving. And, in practice, we define the inertial frame only relying on fixed stars. In an emergent space-time from an automaton Lorenz covariance is distorted, meaning that the principle of relativity does not hold in a ultra-relativistic regime.

I will post this also on your blog, as you asked me.

Thank you for raising the issue.

My best regards

Mauro

you are touching the apocryphal principle of Mach, which Einstein was so fond of, but, unfortunately he couldn't achieve in his GR. Its space-time metric played the role of a kind of ether. In his Lecture in Leiden he said that he believed that the rotating Newton bucket would have the water pushing up the bucket walls, even in an empty universe (see the masterpiece Einstein's biography of Walter Isaacson). Do we have the absolute inertial frame, or even the rest frame, as an ether? In practice we have an ether: it is the background radiation. It is a frame with respect to which we can check that we are moving. And, in practice, we define the inertial frame only relying on fixed stars. In an emergent space-time from an automaton Lorenz covariance is distorted, meaning that the principle of relativity does not hold in a ultra-relativistic regime.

I will post this also on your blog, as you asked me.

Thank you for raising the issue.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Professor D'Ariano,

I am happy that so excellent essay as yours is top rated among some others that are also close to my ideas. I dare to express your “It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of pure information” in a paraphrase: It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of...

view entire post

I am happy that so excellent essay as yours is top rated among some others that are also close to my ideas. I dare to express your “It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of pure information” in a paraphrase: It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jacek,

your post is much longer than your essay!

If I understand your point of view, in synthesis the similarity with mine relies in the notion of physical "object" as emergent. However, in your case the underlying software is a (conformally flat, isotropic, elastic, homeomorphic and self-organized) space-time. In my case is a countable set of quantum systems in relational...

view entire post

your post is much longer than your essay!

If I understand your point of view, in synthesis the similarity with mine relies in the notion of physical "object" as emergent. However, in your case the underlying software is a (conformally flat, isotropic, elastic, homeomorphic and self-organized) space-time. In my case is a countable set of quantum systems in relational...

view entire post

Dear Professor D'Ariano,

I am sorry for the delayed answer. It is not because I am afraid of discreetness. I will try to explain some points. In my concept (as you know) a particle is only a (Gaussian type) spacetime deformation so it can be called a quasi-quanta because Gaussian distribution is continuous however in good approximation it is discrete. We perceive it as discrete.

You claim: “For me everything is (must be) computable.” When QM and GR are computable and deterministic, the universe evolution (naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic. It does not mean that computability and determinism are related. Roger Penrose proves that computability and determinism are different things. So the actual universe is computable during Lyapunov time but its evolution is non-computable.

And later on: “However, essentially my whole philosophy, or scientific methodology if you want, is that I like to assume the minimum number of principles, principles that are almost indisputable, as the axioms of geometry”. I fully agree. So I have proposed only one universal scale-invariant metric.

Best regards and still good luck!

report post as inappropriate

I am sorry for the delayed answer. It is not because I am afraid of discreetness. I will try to explain some points. In my concept (as you know) a particle is only a (Gaussian type) spacetime deformation so it can be called a quasi-quanta because Gaussian distribution is continuous however in good approximation it is discrete. We perceive it as discrete.

You claim: “For me everything is (must be) computable.” When QM and GR are computable and deterministic, the universe evolution (naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic. It does not mean that computability and determinism are related. Roger Penrose proves that computability and determinism are different things. So the actual universe is computable during Lyapunov time but its evolution is non-computable.

And later on: “However, essentially my whole philosophy, or scientific methodology if you want, is that I like to assume the minimum number of principles, principles that are almost indisputable, as the axioms of geometry”. I fully agree. So I have proposed only one universal scale-invariant metric.

Best regards and still good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Giacomo

"Real object" is tautology.

"Ideal object" is contradiction.

As Ludvig Wittgestein told

"Tautoloy and contradiction havn't sense"

Are you agree?

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

"Real object" is tautology.

"Ideal object" is contradiction.

As Ludvig Wittgestein told

"Tautoloy and contradiction havn't sense"

Are you agree?

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Yury,

I do not agree with your first assertion, if you do not take it as a definition of realism,

To me both are nonsense, because the notion of physical object is so, independently on the attached adjective.

The first sentence of the Wittgenstein tractatus is the one that represents my thinking:

" The world is the totality of facts, not of things."

Mauro

I do not agree with your first assertion, if you do not take it as a definition of realism,

To me both are nonsense, because the notion of physical object is so, independently on the attached adjective.

The first sentence of the Wittgenstein tractatus is the one that represents my thinking:

" The world is the totality of facts, not of things."

Mauro

Caro professore D'Ariano,

mille grazie per aver condiviso la sua bella mente con noi. (I'm afraid my written Italian stops here -- but I can talk :)

I would like to bring your attention to the beautiful and short, almost like a theorem, essay by Maria Carrillo-Ruiz, who also shows how cellular automata can be linked to the concept of emergence. In the context of ontological monism...

view entire post

mille grazie per aver condiviso la sua bella mente con noi. (I'm afraid my written Italian stops here -- but I can talk :)

I would like to bring your attention to the beautiful and short, almost like a theorem, essay by Maria Carrillo-Ruiz, who also shows how cellular automata can be linked to the concept of emergence. In the context of ontological monism...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Cara Dr. Marina,

che piacere! Parli Italiano davvero bene! I continue in English, so that everybody can understand.

Thank you very much for your beautiful compliments and for your stimulating post.

Before answering to your post, I also want express my best congratulations for your very well written essay, which I rated very high. After writing this answer, I will write a post...

view entire post

che piacere! Parli Italiano davvero bene! I continue in English, so that everybody can understand.

Thank you very much for your beautiful compliments and for your stimulating post.

Before answering to your post, I also want express my best congratulations for your very well written essay, which I rated very high. After writing this answer, I will write a post...

view entire post

Caro professore D'Ariano,

Thank you so much for your gracious comments and high rating of my essay! This was a very nice surprise and coming from you, the entrant most likely to win this contest, I was on the seventh heaven!

And thank you for reading and commenting on the essays by Carolyn Devereux and Maria Carrillo-Ruiz (and by the way, I'm not a Dr in either physics nor...

view entire post

Thank you so much for your gracious comments and high rating of my essay! This was a very nice surprise and coming from you, the entrant most likely to win this contest, I was on the seventh heaven!

And thank you for reading and commenting on the essays by Carolyn Devereux and Maria Carrillo-Ruiz (and by the way, I'm not a Dr in either physics nor...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Marina,

Regarding the notion of "energy" in my framework, as for any other physical quantity (see e.g. the inertial mass), it must emerge from the quantum processing of the automaton. Mathematically it is related to the imaginary logarithm of the eigenvalues of the unitary operator of the quantum cellular automaton. There are two opposite values (corresponding to...

view entire post

Regarding the notion of "energy" in my framework, as for any other physical quantity (see e.g. the inertial mass), it must emerge from the quantum processing of the automaton. Mathematically it is related to the imaginary logarithm of the eigenvalues of the unitary operator of the quantum cellular automaton. There are two opposite values (corresponding to...

view entire post

Dear Mauro:

I just got around to reading your essay and enjoyed it very much. It is funny that we ended up advocating two seemingly opposing points of view since I know that our opinions are not that far apart.

Let me then try to put the finger on the key differences. Using the example of the river that is never the same and the ship that is completely reconstructed you argue that objects are states. You then point out that states are nothing but a list of properties and hence information precedes matter. Or in the language of the contest: It from bit.

The first thing that I want to point out is that just because something is a state does not imply that it looses its "itness". When X.-G. Wen writes down a solid state model that has QED as a low energy limit then he uses a large number of two-dimensional quantum systems to do this. He calls them spins; you call them qbits. The name doesn't change the fact that they are It. Their interactions determine the emergent low energy behavior.

The second point is more central to my own essay. When you talk about the "catalog of all its properties", you have to assume an external dictionary that makes sense of the catalog. Think of the list of positions of the atoms and molecules that make up the river (or ship). What does this list of numbers mean? To give meaning to these numbers you have to give a procedure of how to position the atoms. This requires material objects (like the standard meter that used to be in Paris). This is why I think that information comes after matter because without matter information is literally meaningless.

All the best.

Olaf

P.S.: You might enjoy my last paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6169. An attempt to do away with Inflation.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I just got around to reading your essay and enjoyed it very much. It is funny that we ended up advocating two seemingly opposing points of view since I know that our opinions are not that far apart.

Let me then try to put the finger on the key differences. Using the example of the river that is never the same and the ship that is completely reconstructed you argue that objects are states. You then point out that states are nothing but a list of properties and hence information precedes matter. Or in the language of the contest: It from bit.

The first thing that I want to point out is that just because something is a state does not imply that it looses its "itness". When X.-G. Wen writes down a solid state model that has QED as a low energy limit then he uses a large number of two-dimensional quantum systems to do this. He calls them spins; you call them qbits. The name doesn't change the fact that they are It. Their interactions determine the emergent low energy behavior.

The second point is more central to my own essay. When you talk about the "catalog of all its properties", you have to assume an external dictionary that makes sense of the catalog. Think of the list of positions of the atoms and molecules that make up the river (or ship). What does this list of numbers mean? To give meaning to these numbers you have to give a procedure of how to position the atoms. This requires material objects (like the standard meter that used to be in Paris). This is why I think that information comes after matter because without matter information is literally meaningless.

All the best.

Olaf

P.S.: You might enjoy my last paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6169. An attempt to do away with Inflation.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Olaf

happy to hear from you! And to know that you still share some of the ideas we discussed two years ago at Pi and then in Pavia. As I promised, I now have the full derivation of Dirac in 3d from purely informational principles (see my recent arXiv:1306.1934 with Paolo Perinotti). There we showed how Dirac eq. is derived as emergent in the relativistic limit of small wave-vectors...

view entire post

happy to hear from you! And to know that you still share some of the ideas we discussed two years ago at Pi and then in Pavia. As I promised, I now have the full derivation of Dirac in 3d from purely informational principles (see my recent arXiv:1306.1934 with Paolo Perinotti). There we showed how Dirac eq. is derived as emergent in the relativistic limit of small wave-vectors...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Olaf

happy to hear from you! And to know that you still share some of the ideas we discussed two years ago at Pi and then in Pavia. As I promised, I now have the full derivation of Dirac in 3d from purely informational principles (see my recent arXiv:1306.1934 with Paolo Perinotti). There we showed how Dirac eq. is derived as emergent in the relativistic limit of small wave-vectors...

view entire post

happy to hear from you! And to know that you still share some of the ideas we discussed two years ago at Pi and then in Pavia. As I promised, I now have the full derivation of Dirac in 3d from purely informational principles (see my recent arXiv:1306.1934 with Paolo Perinotti). There we showed how Dirac eq. is derived as emergent in the relativistic limit of small wave-vectors...

view entire post

Dear Giacomo,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Giacomo

I found your essay very interesting and well structured. However, I have a view in opposition to yours. Just as Olaf and Maria Carrillo argue, I support the view that information has no meaning without objects (it). I'd like to express some critics on your work and I'd be glad if could make some comments.

As far as I could see you support the view that information (bit)...

view entire post

I found your essay very interesting and well structured. However, I have a view in opposition to yours. Just as Olaf and Maria Carrillo argue, I support the view that information has no meaning without objects (it). I'd like to express some critics on your work and I'd be glad if could make some comments.

As far as I could see you support the view that information (bit)...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Israel,

thank you for your kind compliments. And thank you for your long post. I also read your nicely written essay, which is a conversation between Alice and Bob about the theme of the competition, but which definitely is not a debate between the two different points of view, but instead is a colloquium made to reinforce the shared opinion of two matter-realistic persons. From this I...

view entire post

thank you for your kind compliments. And thank you for your long post. I also read your nicely written essay, which is a conversation between Alice and Bob about the theme of the competition, but which definitely is not a debate between the two different points of view, but instead is a colloquium made to reinforce the shared opinion of two matter-realistic persons. From this I...

view entire post

Dear Mauro

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. I would like to answer your questions and make some clarifications about your comments. Perhaps our views are not so different in principle.

You: which definitely is not a debate... ...opinion of two matter-realistic persons.

Indeed, it was never meant to be a debate between two opposite views because, as you can see, Alice...

view entire post

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. I would like to answer your questions and make some clarifications about your comments. Perhaps our views are not so different in principle.

You: which definitely is not a debate... ...opinion of two matter-realistic persons.

Indeed, it was never meant to be a debate between two opposite views because, as you can see, Alice...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Israel,

Thank you for your thorough reply well clarifying all your points. We agree on one relevant issue: that the notion of particle of current field theory needs a radical change.

Thank you also for your kind compliments.

My best regards

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your thorough reply well clarifying all your points. We agree on one relevant issue: that the notion of particle of current field theory needs a radical change.

Thank you also for your kind compliments.

My best regards

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

Dear Physician,

Mass ratio of neutrons and protons is fundamental in physics.

Maybe you do not have time to read essay of unknown authors. I encourage you, therefore, allow you to comment on the very essence of following formula:

Where mathematical constant are:

Physical constants:

Also:

An important physicist said it was a coincidence, or perhaps just a curiosity. Perhaps you feel the same. My opinion is opposite. I think that in terms of, such a significant relationship physicist should have an attitude.

Greetings Branko

report post as inappropriate

Mass ratio of neutrons and protons is fundamental in physics.

Maybe you do not have time to read essay of unknown authors. I encourage you, therefore, allow you to comment on the very essence of following formula:

Where mathematical constant are:

Physical constants:

Also:

An important physicist said it was a coincidence, or perhaps just a curiosity. Perhaps you feel the same. My opinion is opposite. I think that in terms of, such a significant relationship physicist should have an attitude.

Greetings Branko

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor D'Ariano,

(Google translate)

Thanks for the clear answer.

Sorry for the poor translation. I really thought the physicist.

This is another example which shows that in physics clearer understanding via mathematical formulas.

formulas mean nothing to me,

reasonings mean nothing to me,

Experiment, mean nothing to me,

but together mean the physics.

Reasoning regarding the relationship, it is in my essay. Nothing new, but all the others have said before me. The relationship is a result of their reasoning. Your work I left not rated yet of 2 reasons:

I can not believe the quality of the translation of complicated text,

I do not see that reasoning is supported by mathematical expression.

Regards

Branko

report post as inappropriate

(Google translate)

Thanks for the clear answer.

Sorry for the poor translation. I really thought the physicist.

This is another example which shows that in physics clearer understanding via mathematical formulas.

formulas mean nothing to me,

reasonings mean nothing to me,

Experiment, mean nothing to me,

but together mean the physics.

Reasoning regarding the relationship, it is in my essay. Nothing new, but all the others have said before me. The relationship is a result of their reasoning. Your work I left not rated yet of 2 reasons:

I can not believe the quality of the translation of complicated text,

I do not see that reasoning is supported by mathematical expression.

Regards

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Caro bellisimo professore,

ho lasciato un post l'altro ieri (31, 2013 @ 16:44 GMT) con un paio di questioni. Forse non lo avete visto?

Many thanks for your response,

-Marina

report post as inappropriate

ho lasciato un post l'altro ieri (31, 2013 @ 16:44 GMT) con un paio di questioni. Forse non lo avete visto?

Many thanks for your response,

-Marina

report post as inappropriate

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Friends

I noticed that some messages of the last two days disappeared. In particular, a very nice one from Marina Vasilyeva, which was the last post I have seen of this essay blog. I have been traveling from Italy to Chicago, and just arrived yesterday. Please, can you write again your very last posts, if you find them missing? I will answer tomorrow, and continue this pleasant discussions with you next days.

My best regards to you all

Mauro

I noticed that some messages of the last two days disappeared. In particular, a very nice one from Marina Vasilyeva, which was the last post I have seen of this essay blog. I have been traveling from Italy to Chicago, and just arrived yesterday. Please, can you write again your very last posts, if you find them missing? I will answer tomorrow, and continue this pleasant discussions with you next days.

My best regards to you all

Mauro

Dear Giacomo

You have a similar approach as Fotini. Can you give some similarity and differences with her approach?

Your essay demands more knowledge of supporting papers. You give visualization with Alice, Bob ... Can you explain and visualize, where the quantum physics is in this example. This can be very useful.

You also write that metric from Quantum celluar automata (QCA) cannot be Pytagoras', except with inclusion of Gromov. But, what if we say that QCA metric is microscopically random. In this case, I think, metric can be also Pytagorean.

You address only ''physical'' level of ontology. In this level I agree with you, that ontology doesn't exist. I also claim that space is emergent. But, in my essay I added also consciousnss into physics. I think that ontology of qualia (It) cannot be simply explained with ''bit''. By my opinion, this is the essential ontology of physics. But I agree that it should be simplified, and clearly connected with physics.

report post as inappropriate

You have a similar approach as Fotini. Can you give some similarity and differences with her approach?

Your essay demands more knowledge of supporting papers. You give visualization with Alice, Bob ... Can you explain and visualize, where the quantum physics is in this example. This can be very useful.

You also write that metric from Quantum celluar automata (QCA) cannot be Pytagoras', except with inclusion of Gromov. But, what if we say that QCA metric is microscopically random. In this case, I think, metric can be also Pytagorean.

You address only ''physical'' level of ontology. In this level I agree with you, that ontology doesn't exist. I also claim that space is emergent. But, in my essay I added also consciousnss into physics. I think that ontology of qualia (It) cannot be simply explained with ''bit''. By my opinion, this is the essential ontology of physics. But I agree that it should be simplified, and clearly connected with physics.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Janko

thank you for your interesting post. Yes, my approach is close to that of Fotini, in the sense that we reach the same conclusion, namely that, as she says:

"the problem of time is a paradox, stemming from an unstated faulty premise. Our faulty assumption is that space is real. I propose that what does not fundamentally exist is not time but space, geometry and gravity....

view entire post

thank you for your interesting post. Yes, my approach is close to that of Fotini, in the sense that we reach the same conclusion, namely that, as she says:

"the problem of time is a paradox, stemming from an unstated faulty premise. Our faulty assumption is that space is real. I propose that what does not fundamentally exist is not time but space, geometry and gravity....

view entire post

my missing messages:

.

Caro bellisimo professore,

ho lasciato un post l'altro ieri su con un paio di questioni. Forse non lo avete visto?

And the post it refers to is this:

.

Caro professore D'Ariano,

Thank you so much for your gracious comments and high rating of my essay! This was a very nice surprise and coming from a distinguished professor...

view entire post

.

Caro bellisimo professore,

ho lasciato un post l'altro ieri su con un paio di questioni. Forse non lo avete visto?

And the post it refers to is this:

.

Caro professore D'Ariano,

Thank you so much for your gracious comments and high rating of my essay! This was a very nice surprise and coming from a distinguished professor...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Marina

I'm happy that you had a personal backup of your very nice post. I answered to your previous post that you kindly copied here. Please, look up in this blog, I will be looking for your answer.

Here I just dare confess a personal curiosity about you--a computer scientist that worked in the industry and has a not just the understanding, but the genuine curiosity, of a true scientist. Your activity looks fascinating: what can be more interesting that the history of ideas? And pursued by somebody who loves puzzles? Are you a science writer? I am left with the mystery of a pair of green eyes and bright-red lipstick of a woman living with her family in the woods of Pennsylvania. What also makes you special is that you are probably the only author in this contest who makes publicity to others, not to herself.

My best regards

Mauro

I'm happy that you had a personal backup of your very nice post. I answered to your previous post that you kindly copied here. Please, look up in this blog, I will be looking for your answer.

Here I just dare confess a personal curiosity about you--a computer scientist that worked in the industry and has a not just the understanding, but the genuine curiosity, of a true scientist. Your activity looks fascinating: what can be more interesting that the history of ideas? And pursued by somebody who loves puzzles? Are you a science writer? I am left with the mystery of a pair of green eyes and bright-red lipstick of a woman living with her family in the woods of Pennsylvania. What also makes you special is that you are probably the only author in this contest who makes publicity to others, not to herself.

My best regards

Mauro

Beautiful professore :)

thank you so much for answering my questions. I'm about to leave a reply above. Yes, I'd like to establish a new career as a writer with a goal to fascinate wide audiences -- and what can be more fascinating than novel ideas? To me, ideas themselves are more interesting than whoever claims their authorship. Very interesting ideas expressed in a lucid form reveal a beautiful mind behind them and that in turn leads to fascination with the person. But, as in it from bit, ideas always come first.

Thank you again,

-Marina

report post as inappropriate

thank you so much for answering my questions. I'm about to leave a reply above. Yes, I'd like to establish a new career as a writer with a goal to fascinate wide audiences -- and what can be more fascinating than novel ideas? To me, ideas themselves are more interesting than whoever claims their authorship. Very interesting ideas expressed in a lucid form reveal a beautiful mind behind them and that in turn leads to fascination with the person. But, as in it from bit, ideas always come first.

Thank you again,

-Marina

report post as inappropriate

Beautiful Marina,

I am very curious about your future books. I have a huge collection of books in physics, many of them nontechnical. Consider me available for feedback and editorial referee, if the ideas that you are considering are within physics. You just send an email to me. I've seen on Amazon you have two recent kindles with Dmitrii Suslin, unfortunately in Russian. I've also recently started a book-writing parallel life, and I will come out with a couple of books soon.

Looking forward to reading your first book

My best

Mauro

I am very curious about your future books. I have a huge collection of books in physics, many of them nontechnical. Consider me available for feedback and editorial referee, if the ideas that you are considering are within physics. You just send an email to me. I've seen on Amazon you have two recent kindles with Dmitrii Suslin, unfortunately in Russian. I've also recently started a book-writing parallel life, and I will come out with a couple of books soon.

Looking forward to reading your first book

My best

Mauro

Hi Giacomo,

Thank you for an excellent essay.

> Why we should bother changing our way of looking at reality? Because the old matter-realistic way of thinking in terms of particles moving around and interacting on the stage of space-time is literally blocking the progress of theoretical physics.

Strongly put, and I agree.

> We can create a three-dimensional...

view entire post

Thank you for an excellent essay.

> Why we should bother changing our way of looking at reality? Because the old matter-realistic way of thinking in terms of particles moving around and interacting on the stage of space-time is literally blocking the progress of theoretical physics.

Strongly put, and I agree.

> We can create a three-dimensional...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Hugh,

I thank you for your beautiful compliments and your appreciation of some of the main points in my essay. I think that the simulation paradigm is taken very seriously in my essay, in the sense that reality should be in all sense indistinguishable from its (quantum) simulation. What you call the "explicate" order is the classical information that we can tap from the quantum automaton, whereas the "implicate" order is the secret quantum information precessed by the automaton. I also had a read of your essay, and I found it very clearly written and with interesting ideas inside (and I rated it high), though I'm not completely sure for the moment that I share the "Bit from Us" part of your thesis.

Thank you again

My best regards

Mauro

I thank you for your beautiful compliments and your appreciation of some of the main points in my essay. I think that the simulation paradigm is taken very seriously in my essay, in the sense that reality should be in all sense indistinguishable from its (quantum) simulation. What you call the "explicate" order is the classical information that we can tap from the quantum automaton, whereas the "implicate" order is the secret quantum information precessed by the automaton. I also had a read of your essay, and I found it very clearly written and with interesting ideas inside (and I rated it high), though I'm not completely sure for the moment that I share the "Bit from Us" part of your thesis.

Thank you again

My best regards

Mauro

Hi Mauro,

> What you call the "explicate" order is the classical information that we can tap from the quantum automaton, whereas the "implicate" order is the secret quantum information precessed by the automaton.

Yes exactly.

> I also had a read of your essay, and I found it very clearly written and with interesting ideas inside (and I rated it high), though I'm not completely sure for the moment that I share the "Bit from Us" part of your thesis.

I think the important thing for now is to show that the computational paradigm is feasible and has explanatory power. Once we have such a model for how the physical world arises, then we can see if it answers questions about what lies underneath the physical.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

> What you call the "explicate" order is the classical information that we can tap from the quantum automaton, whereas the "implicate" order is the secret quantum information precessed by the automaton.

Yes exactly.

> I also had a read of your essay, and I found it very clearly written and with interesting ideas inside (and I rated it high), though I'm not completely sure for the moment that I share the "Bit from Us" part of your thesis.

I think the important thing for now is to show that the computational paradigm is feasible and has explanatory power. Once we have such a model for how the physical world arises, then we can see if it answers questions about what lies underneath the physical.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Giacomo,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Your essay started off stating the long-held central tenets of physics (i.e., modern natural philosophy) and then proceeded to attempt to reconcile them with other types of ideas; namely, reductionism with holism. They are two ways of thinking with varying applications. And I think that showed in a lot of your reasoning, which came across (to me at least) as being contradictory and conflating. The notion that physical objects became vaporized was particularly alarming!

Please check out my essay: All Your Base Are Belong To Math.

- Kyle Miller

report post as inappropriate

Please check out my essay: All Your Base Are Belong To Math.

- Kyle Miller

report post as inappropriate

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Charles,

thank you for your beautiful compliments, and for your post that makes the point on the statistics about the different points of view. Clearly, as you say, the "Bit from It"--the realist point of view--is the most popular. Unfortunately we cannot infer any useful information from such statistical fact. Centuries ago it was the same with "is Earth flat or round"? The "immediate evidence" is the easy way: but unfortunately it has little to do with logic. In addition, we have the "sociological" side of physics, with its own lobbies, of which the historical ones have had the opportunity of collecting more power and more popular consensus through a publication systems that is business oriented.

I also enjoyed reading your essay, I rated it and wrote a short post in your blog. The scientist who is closest to my point of view is von Weizsaecker. Unfortunately, in those old years both him and J.A. Wheeler had not yet sufficiently sharp tools to work out their revolutionary ideas.

My best regards

Mauro

thank you for your beautiful compliments, and for your post that makes the point on the statistics about the different points of view. Clearly, as you say, the "Bit from It"--the realist point of view--is the most popular. Unfortunately we cannot infer any useful information from such statistical fact. Centuries ago it was the same with "is Earth flat or round"? The "immediate evidence" is the easy way: but unfortunately it has little to do with logic. In addition, we have the "sociological" side of physics, with its own lobbies, of which the historical ones have had the opportunity of collecting more power and more popular consensus through a publication systems that is business oriented.

I also enjoyed reading your essay, I rated it and wrote a short post in your blog. The scientist who is closest to my point of view is von Weizsaecker. Unfortunately, in those old years both him and J.A. Wheeler had not yet sufficiently sharp tools to work out their revolutionary ideas.

My best regards

Mauro

I enjoyed your essay. A last minute comment about the blur between realism and idealism. If a quantum is some function of space and energy and time it therefore exists, it is real. This is what I have understood to be a realist view. I agree with you that information is the interaction between 2 objects and I assume that those 2 objects can be bits of space. Therefore if space is real then information is emergent rather than fundamental. Is an abstract notion of information creating the real universe (the idealist view) or is information emergent from the interaction of objects such as quanta of space (what I have taken as a realist view)? Your essay has made me think that the traditional realist view of objects creating the Universe is no longer valid but that there is a new realist view that space and energy and quanta exist.

Carolyn Devereux

report post as inappropriate

Carolyn Devereux

report post as inappropriate

Dear Carolyn

thank you for reading my essay and for your kind compliments. I also enjoy reading your essay, and commented about it answering to Marina Vasilyeva. You can make a search of your name on this post. However, I couldn't find any reference to a technical paper of yours about the ideas expressed in your essay. Can you give me a one?

Regarding your points on realism, I hardly follow your post. To me space (empty space) cannot have any real connotation, if not in the negative. The point is: what do you mean for "real"? In my view information is fundamental--not emergent--and definitely cannot emerge from interaction between "objects" (half of my essay is devoted to dismantling the notion of "object"). Energy is a far-from-fundamental notion. There are only quantum systems in interaction: and from this the whole physics emerges. And systems are "qubits", namely pure information. And this (systems and interactions) is the minimal set of "entities" starting from which a physical theory can be constructed.

Please, provide me a technical paper of yours, so that I may be able to better understand your point of view.

My best regards

Mauro

thank you for reading my essay and for your kind compliments. I also enjoy reading your essay, and commented about it answering to Marina Vasilyeva. You can make a search of your name on this post. However, I couldn't find any reference to a technical paper of yours about the ideas expressed in your essay. Can you give me a one?

Regarding your points on realism, I hardly follow your post. To me space (empty space) cannot have any real connotation, if not in the negative. The point is: what do you mean for "real"? In my view information is fundamental--not emergent--and definitely cannot emerge from interaction between "objects" (half of my essay is devoted to dismantling the notion of "object"). Energy is a far-from-fundamental notion. There are only quantum systems in interaction: and from this the whole physics emerges. And systems are "qubits", namely pure information. And this (systems and interactions) is the minimal set of "entities" starting from which a physical theory can be constructed.

Please, provide me a technical paper of yours, so that I may be able to better understand your point of view.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Carolyn

thank you for reading my essay and for your kind compliments. I also enjoy reading your essay, and commented about it answering to Marina Vasilyeva. You can make a search of your name on this post. However, I couldn't find any reference to a technical paper of yours about the ideas expressed in your essay. Can you give me a one?

Regarding your points on realism, I hardly...

view entire post

thank you for reading my essay and for your kind compliments. I also enjoy reading your essay, and commented about it answering to Marina Vasilyeva. You can make a search of your name on this post. However, I couldn't find any reference to a technical paper of yours about the ideas expressed in your essay. Can you give me a one?

Regarding your points on realism, I hardly...

view entire post

Thank you for your reply. I have no technical papers on this, that is my next goal. What is meant by a quantum system is where we may differ, I see it as energy which can transfer information, and if I understand correctly you are saying a quantum is information that can transfer energy. Perhaps this is not significant but I suppose I am still trying to find something real to define a quantum system by.

Carolyn

report post as inappropriate

Carolyn

report post as inappropriate

Dear Prof. D'Arino,

I am agree with you that “It” is emergent from pure information, an information of special kind : quantum." Of course, "It" is from "Qubit" but if we can able to observe the same suppose from any opposite (say a mirror), why that "Qubit" would not be from "It"? I think that the factor of observation as well as observer (like us) would have some definite role. So I invite you to read and rate my essay "It from bit equally bit from it".

I think quantization property in nature is the basic origin of 'pure' information.

Your essay is really convincing and impressive. So I rate you full.

Regards

Dipak

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

report post as inappropriate

I am agree with you that “It” is emergent from pure information, an information of special kind : quantum." Of course, "It" is from "Qubit" but if we can able to observe the same suppose from any opposite (say a mirror), why that "Qubit" would not be from "It"? I think that the factor of observation as well as observer (like us) would have some definite role. So I invite you to read and rate my essay "It from bit equally bit from it".

I think quantization property in nature is the basic origin of 'pure' information.

Your essay is really convincing and impressive. So I rate you full.

Regards

Dipak

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dipak

thank you for your very nice compliments, and thank you very much for your rating. I will read and rate your essay soon.

I don't believe in the specularity between It and Bit. As you have seen in my essay, for me Bit is fundamental, and It is emergent. In order to put the It to the same level of the Bit, one should precisely define what is the "elementary It", and we know that it cannot be the elementary particle.

My best regards

Mauro

thank you for your very nice compliments, and thank you very much for your rating. I will read and rate your essay soon.

I don't believe in the specularity between It and Bit. As you have seen in my essay, for me Bit is fundamental, and It is emergent. In order to put the It to the same level of the Bit, one should precisely define what is the "elementary It", and we know that it cannot be the elementary particle.

My best regards

Mauro

Mauro,

Your essay is readable. I have seen many essays that were far from clear. You tied together the topics of this contest into one theme. I felt the topic of the contest was not clear, but you did you best to put it in a presentable form. You explore knowledge from the information side, but not from the physics side.

Thank you for your essay,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is readable. I have seen many essays that were far from clear. You tied together the topics of this contest into one theme. I felt the topic of the contest was not clear, but you did you best to put it in a presentable form. You explore knowledge from the information side, but not from the physics side.

Thank you for your essay,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Thank you Jeffrey for your compliments.

In writing my essay I've been especially concerned with its readability, and with being myself convincing. It will take time to make my quantum cellular automaton framework more popular, but I've already witness a large increase in popularity from the last year, whereas in the academic environment it immediately got much interest since the very earliest ideas.

Thank you for your post. I really appreciated it. And I also enjoyed reading your essay on robots.

My best regards

Mauro

In writing my essay I've been especially concerned with its readability, and with being myself convincing. It will take time to make my quantum cellular automaton framework more popular, but I've already witness a large increase in popularity from the last year, whereas in the academic environment it immediately got much interest since the very earliest ideas.

Thank you for your post. I really appreciated it. And I also enjoyed reading your essay on robots.

My best regards

Mauro

Dear Professor D’Ariano,

In your view, as I understand it, the fundamental existents are neither particles nor fields. Even space-time is not ultimate. Instead, reality would seem to be a type of abstract mathematical structure. You emphasize, however, that the base of reality is a particular structure which follows precise and definite rules, as opposed to a generic structure.

This picture of things raises the following question: Is reality at bottom only a mathematical structure, or is reality a non-mathematical thing which exemplifies this structure? If reality is only a mathematical structure, then it is natural to wonder what distinguishes the one real structure from the infinitely many structures which are unreal. On the other hand, if reality is a thing-in-itself, or things-in-themselves, exemplifying these structures, then there is a different question, but still an important one. In this case, it would be reasonable to ask what else we could infer about the thing-in-itself, beyond the fact of its existence. Perhaps even the word “existence” would be too definite a term here. It would be uncomfortable, although perhaps unavoidable, to have to postulate something so unknowable. These questions are not really objections to your view, but they nonetheless would seem to be puzzling consequences.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

In your view, as I understand it, the fundamental existents are neither particles nor fields. Even space-time is not ultimate. Instead, reality would seem to be a type of abstract mathematical structure. You emphasize, however, that the base of reality is a particular structure which follows precise and definite rules, as opposed to a generic structure.

This picture of things raises the following question: Is reality at bottom only a mathematical structure, or is reality a non-mathematical thing which exemplifies this structure? If reality is only a mathematical structure, then it is natural to wonder what distinguishes the one real structure from the infinitely many structures which are unreal. On the other hand, if reality is a thing-in-itself, or things-in-themselves, exemplifying these structures, then there is a different question, but still an important one. In this case, it would be reasonable to ask what else we could infer about the thing-in-itself, beyond the fact of its existence. Perhaps even the word “existence” would be too definite a term here. It would be uncomfortable, although perhaps unavoidable, to have to postulate something so unknowable. These questions are not really objections to your view, but they nonetheless would seem to be puzzling consequences.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Laurence,

thank you for your provoking post.

For me "reality" is definitely not a mathematical structure. You should specify better what you mean by reality: if reality is what you see (the shadows on the Plato's cave) or what you believe is out of there (the bodies projecting the shadows). In my essay I clearly stated that the main point in the scientific method is to clearly distinguish between theory and experiment. Such a distinction, far from being trivial as it may appear at first sight, is in my opinion the main reason for the stubborn attachment of many scientists to the view of space-time as "a stage where particles move"--a theoretical landscape that has been proved to be foundationally inconsistent, and it is the origin of the apparent paradox of the GR-QT conflict. We are taking about "theory" here, namely what we believe is out of the cave, the mechanisms by which we explain what we see. But what we believe is not what is "actually" out there (this is a nonsense: who is the Referee to assess reality of what we believe?) We shouldn't forget that we are the ones that build-up the "ontologies" as convenient tools for reasoning.

Now, at this point, you should agree that what we are talking about is "theory". And theory is written in the language of mathematics. Therefore, it is not "reality" that is an abstract mathematical construction.

Thank you again for the opportunity given to me by your post

Mauro

thank you for your provoking post.

For me "reality" is definitely not a mathematical structure. You should specify better what you mean by reality: if reality is what you see (the shadows on the Plato's cave) or what you believe is out of there (the bodies projecting the shadows). In my essay I clearly stated that the main point in the scientific method is to clearly distinguish between theory and experiment. Such a distinction, far from being trivial as it may appear at first sight, is in my opinion the main reason for the stubborn attachment of many scientists to the view of space-time as "a stage where particles move"--a theoretical landscape that has been proved to be foundationally inconsistent, and it is the origin of the apparent paradox of the GR-QT conflict. We are taking about "theory" here, namely what we believe is out of the cave, the mechanisms by which we explain what we see. But what we believe is not what is "actually" out there (this is a nonsense: who is the Referee to assess reality of what we believe?) We shouldn't forget that we are the ones that build-up the "ontologies" as convenient tools for reasoning.

Now, at this point, you should agree that what we are talking about is "theory". And theory is written in the language of mathematics. Therefore, it is not "reality" that is an abstract mathematical construction.

Thank you again for the opportunity given to me by your post

Mauro

"One can ask: what is the minimal field vector dimension s of a nontrivial automaton quasi-isometrically embeddable in R3 and isotropic?"

Did you read about the part in the introduction that the essay should be interesting to the educated public along the lines of an article in Scientfic American? I'm MIT educated and that's total word salad to me. Am I supposed to know what "R3" is?

These essays are to be rated according to relevancy and interest. I have plowed through several essays this evening hoping to find one which was relevant and had something to do with whether reality can be represented digitally or whether reality doesn't rely on digital bits. I have also been hoping to find one that was interesting enough that it would deserve more than a skim through. I have yet to find one. They are all like this essay - which seem to have something vaguely to do with "information", but nothing to address Wheelers dream of a completely digital representation of the world.

report post as inappropriate

Did you read about the part in the introduction that the essay should be interesting to the educated public along the lines of an article in Scientfic American? I'm MIT educated and that's total word salad to me. Am I supposed to know what "R3" is?

These essays are to be rated according to relevancy and interest. I have plowed through several essays this evening hoping to find one which was relevant and had something to do with whether reality can be represented digitally or whether reality doesn't rely on digital bits. I have also been hoping to find one that was interesting enough that it would deserve more than a skim through. I have yet to find one. They are all like this essay - which seem to have something vaguely to do with "information", but nothing to address Wheelers dream of a completely digital representation of the world.

report post as inappropriate

Franklin

I am surprised that at MIT students don't know what is R^3. Even in Italy at high schools students know it! Besides, I clearly defined R^3 in my essay as "the usual Euclidean space", and I personally studied Euclidean spaces at a Literature high school. I have many friends at MIT since ages (and even got my PhD students having a postdoc there), and you do not seem a standard MIT-educated person. You are just kidding.

Anyway, talking more seriously. I wrote an essay deliberately with many levels of reading, to satisfy all different kinds of audience. I devoted only one page to the technical level, and used the most standard notation and most elementary notions. (Every science-graduated should know notions as field, dimension, metric, isometry, isotropy. Maybe he is not required to know GR, but he definitely must know the basics of quantum theory.) Having in mind the possibility of a Scientific American publication, I also put the technical part between definite boundaries within the essay.

If we want to talk about serious real physics here--not mere random speculations--at least, there must be a page giving the precise technical definitions. Not only this is allowed by the rules of the contest, but also it is logically mandatory. Otherwise, one can e.g. claim gravity as a force between dipoles, forgetting that it would not go as the inverse square law.

Paradoxically, the Corda paper (which is not an essay, but a technical paper that needs a long list of references to be read) found the consensus of the Community. Therefore, it seems to me that not only you are not a standard MIT-educated person, but not even a standard member of this Community.

I understand your frustration.

Don't worry, be happy

With my best regards

Mauro

I am surprised that at MIT students don't know what is R^3. Even in Italy at high schools students know it! Besides, I clearly defined R^3 in my essay as "the usual Euclidean space", and I personally studied Euclidean spaces at a Literature high school. I have many friends at MIT since ages (and even got my PhD students having a postdoc there), and you do not seem a standard MIT-educated person. You are just kidding.

Anyway, talking more seriously. I wrote an essay deliberately with many levels of reading, to satisfy all different kinds of audience. I devoted only one page to the technical level, and used the most standard notation and most elementary notions. (Every science-graduated should know notions as field, dimension, metric, isometry, isotropy. Maybe he is not required to know GR, but he definitely must know the basics of quantum theory.) Having in mind the possibility of a Scientific American publication, I also put the technical part between definite boundaries within the essay.

If we want to talk about serious real physics here--not mere random speculations--at least, there must be a page giving the precise technical definitions. Not only this is allowed by the rules of the contest, but also it is logically mandatory. Otherwise, one can e.g. claim gravity as a force between dipoles, forgetting that it would not go as the inverse square law.

Paradoxically, the Corda paper (which is not an essay, but a technical paper that needs a long list of references to be read) found the consensus of the Community. Therefore, it seems to me that not only you are not a standard MIT-educated person, but not even a standard member of this Community.

I understand your frustration.

Don't worry, be happy

With my best regards

Mauro

Greetings Giacomo,

I greatly enjoyed your essay. I find the notion of a quantum cellular automaton quite compelling, and your formulation shows great promise. Simple and elegant. I first heard the term "It from Qubit" attributed to Paola Zizzi (isn't she also at Pavia?) by Lloyd and Ng in a Scientific American article, and this certainly makes more sense than "It from Bit." Her work inspired me and she encouraged me to pursue my Physics studies, a number of years ago, and I'm wondering if she was one of your inspirations as well.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Gerard 't Hooft about his CA based Quantum Gravity theory at FFP10 - as recounted in my essay - in your theory "What does the computing?" And based on what came out of that conversation I should also ask "Is your Quantum CA Lorentz invariant?" because Gerard said this is very difficult to achieve with CA based theories. In any case; I have rated your essay highly, and I wish you the best of luck.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I greatly enjoyed your essay. I find the notion of a quantum cellular automaton quite compelling, and your formulation shows great promise. Simple and elegant. I first heard the term "It from Qubit" attributed to Paola Zizzi (isn't she also at Pavia?) by Lloyd and Ng in a Scientific American article, and this certainly makes more sense than "It from Bit." Her work inspired me and she encouraged me to pursue my Physics studies, a number of years ago, and I'm wondering if she was one of your inspirations as well.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Gerard 't Hooft about his CA based Quantum Gravity theory at FFP10 - as recounted in my essay - in your theory "What does the computing?" And based on what came out of that conversation I should also ask "Is your Quantum CA Lorentz invariant?" because Gerard said this is very difficult to achieve with CA based theories. In any case; I have rated your essay highly, and I wish you the best of luck.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jonathan,

thank you for your beautiful compliments. I know Paola Zizzi, but I didn't know that she used the "It from Qubit" modification of J.A. Wheeler's paradigm: it has been so natural to me for years. Paola is not in Pavia, she is in Trieste. I also know Seth well, I will ask him. Seth inspired me a lot in these last years.

It is interesting that Gerard 't Hooft said that...

view entire post

thank you for your beautiful compliments. I know Paola Zizzi, but I didn't know that she used the "It from Qubit" modification of J.A. Wheeler's paradigm: it has been so natural to me for years. Paola is not in Pavia, she is in Trieste. I also know Seth well, I will ask him. Seth inspired me a lot in these last years.

It is interesting that Gerard 't Hooft said that...

view entire post

Best of Luck for the Magnificent Eight !

I am throught the 180 essays, all rated. For me 2/3 of them were poor and other 1/6 curious. The rest (1/6) have I rated over 4/10.

You are among the authors of the top essays from my sight - alphabetically :

Corda, D'Ariano, Maguire, Rogozhin, Singleton, Sreenath, Vaid, Vishwakarma,

and I hope one of you will be the winner. (Please, don't rate my essay.)

David

report post as inappropriate

I am throught the 180 essays, all rated. For me 2/3 of them were poor and other 1/6 curious. The rest (1/6) have I rated over 4/10.

You are among the authors of the top essays from my sight - alphabetically :

Corda, D'Ariano, Maguire, Rogozhin, Singleton, Sreenath, Vaid, Vishwakarma,

and I hope one of you will be the winner. (Please, don't rate my essay.)

David

report post as inappropriate

David

I thank you very much for your high opinion of my essay.

I share your statistics about the contest. I share also many of your points in your essay (which I've not rated it, as you asked). What I do not agree with is your point:

"Quantum entanglement opens the window for locally noncausal phenomena. We have to think wholly and incorporate global informational field - web of BITs - with links embedded in the quantum field."

Causality is perfectly respected by entanglement. Indeed causality is the first of the six Pavia axioms (see my Ref. [3]). Nonlocal correlations are non causal, exactly in the sense that cannot be used to transmit information (Einsten's sense). They can be used to do teleportation and many other nice things, but not for communication.

Thank you again,

My best regards

Mauro

I thank you very much for your high opinion of my essay.

I share your statistics about the contest. I share also many of your points in your essay (which I've not rated it, as you asked). What I do not agree with is your point:

"Quantum entanglement opens the window for locally noncausal phenomena. We have to think wholly and incorporate global informational field - web of BITs - with links embedded in the quantum field."

Causality is perfectly respected by entanglement. Indeed causality is the first of the six Pavia axioms (see my Ref. [3]). Nonlocal correlations are non causal, exactly in the sense that cannot be used to transmit information (Einsten's sense). They can be used to do teleportation and many other nice things, but not for communication.

Thank you again,

My best regards

Mauro

Giacomo - I rated this yesterday but forgot to add a comment...

I found your essay outstanding. I may not agree with the conclusion, but your description, logic and presentation were impeccable. The part I enjoyed most was your description of lattices in the quantum cellular automata.

I wonder if you might find some synergy with the approach I have taken. I begin with the question of EPR, assume the constancy of speed of light, but question our ability to measure intervals in “time”. I introduce the concept of a reversible subtime in order to overcome the Bell correlations, and show (at least in descriptive form) that it is possible to understand the results of these experiments without sacrificing locality.

My conclusion: the photon is the carrier of time and the universe is a network automata.

I will be honored to hear your thoughts after reading it.

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1

.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

Lets connect when the contest is over.

Kind regards, Paul

paul at borrill dot com

report post as inappropriate

I found your essay outstanding. I may not agree with the conclusion, but your description, logic and presentation were impeccable. The part I enjoyed most was your description of lattices in the quantum cellular automata.

I wonder if you might find some synergy with the approach I have taken. I begin with the question of EPR, assume the constancy of speed of light, but question our ability to measure intervals in “time”. I introduce the concept of a reversible subtime in order to overcome the Bell correlations, and show (at least in descriptive form) that it is possible to understand the results of these experiments without sacrificing locality.

My conclusion: the photon is the carrier of time and the universe is a network automata.

I will be honored to hear your thoughts after reading it.

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1

.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

Lets connect when the contest is over.

Kind regards, Paul

paul at borrill dot com

report post as inappropriate

Paul,

thank you for your compliments.

I think that our points of view look similar, but instead they are quite different.

I don't have atoms in interaction, and your networks have dynamical connections. Besides, the quantum cellular automaton is not just an idea, it is already a thorough theoretical framework. You should read my Ref. [7].

Thank you again.

My best regards

Mauro

thank you for your compliments.

I think that our points of view look similar, but instead they are quite different.

I don't have atoms in interaction, and your networks have dynamical connections. Besides, the quantum cellular automaton is not just an idea, it is already a thorough theoretical framework. You should read my Ref. [7].

Thank you again.

My best regards

Mauro

Login or create account to post reply or comment.