Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Rick Padua: on 12/19/15 at 17:49pm UTC, wrote Diederik Aerts and his colleagues at the VUB and elsewhere have been...

Jon: on 12/11/15 at 0:33am UTC, wrote seems related to the work on top down causation of sara walker and paul...

Chris Mannering: on 11/6/15 at 13:28pm UTC, wrote Some of the reasoning you have in play there, seems - on the face of things...

Chris Mannering: on 11/6/15 at 13:26pm UTC, wrote Some of the reasoning you have in play there, seems - on the face of things...

Nicholas I. Hosein: on 10/29/15 at 19:10pm UTC, wrote Thank you Steve.

Nicholas I. Hosein: on 10/27/15 at 15:50pm UTC, wrote Vacuum state In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the...

Thomas Ray: on 10/4/15 at 14:29pm UTC, wrote If entanglement falls, as a fundamental principle, dynamic centrality...

Thomas Ray: on 10/4/15 at 13:12pm UTC, wrote Here's another perspective on the applications of quantum-like effects to...



FQXi FORUM
September 18, 2021

ARTICLE: Quantum Cybernetics [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 2, 2015 @ 15:55 GMT
While this article is a breath of fresh air, recognizing the role of Ashby's law of requisite variety in control systems, entanglement spoils the picture.

Bar-Yam understood that requisite variety is a theorem in complex systems science, re-introducing classical logic. Dynamic centrality preserves locality via negative feedback.

From my 2007 conference paper "Time, Change and Self-organization:"

"3.2. Because each discrete sequential event has a finite range, information boundaries should correspond to cardinal directions of 3-space for a 6-dimensional , 2-point boundary, finite analysis. [Casti, 1996] A model of dynamic centrality [Braha—Bar- Yam, 2006] in which dominant nodes exchange position continuously, reveals that high network connectivity is sensitively dependent on time. To exploit this characteristic, in order to extract accurate information about a present action from a future state, one treats the network as a self organized system exhibiting infinite self similarity—each interval in which a singularity forms is a new initial condition. Because we now know, as a result of Perelman’s proof of the Poincare' Conjecture, that singularities of the topological positively curved 3-manifold are extinguished only in finite time [Anderson, 2004]—then if time is an n-dimensional infinitely orientable metric on a self-avoiding random walk, a network of random-output computers ( "calculating machines") corresponds to quantum time intervals randomly orienting in an infinite dimensional (Hilbert) space—in which the principle of self-similarity forces an ordered direction of continuous time in the limits of the 3-manifold. [Ray. 2006]"

The accompanying slide presentation. [/link}

report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 3, 2015 @ 16:39 GMT
Although quantum algebra often incorporates time-averaged solutions that appear instantaneous, there is no such thing as an instantaneous quantum change.

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 2, 2015 @ 15:55 GMT as "We cannot reconcile quantum mechanics with classical mechanics, because quantum events don’t happen continuously in time; what we observe is purely interpreted in a mathematical model, a geometric event-space of discontinuous, statistical functions (“rolls of the dice.”)."

A photon is a complicated superposition of frequencies or wavelets that couples into a complicated superposition of states between quantum objects. It is a large number of discrete exchanges of matter and phase that couples photons with states among objects. It is from the discrete time delays of those discrete matter exchanges that we imagine a continuous time and space and continuous motion in that continuous time and space.

However, the nature of quantum reality is of discrete matter exchanges and discrete time delays. Thus your thesis of discrete information exchange as a basis for time is a valid one as long as you reconcile quantum dephasing that represents information that is lost to the dephasing of the universe and therefore unknowable information, i.e., rolls of the dice.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 3, 2015 @ 18:05 GMT
I agree, Steve. I don't believe, however, that we imagine continuous spacetime and continuous motion.

I assume continuity by the principle of comprehensibility. No such principle attends quantum mechanics, which is why it must fill the gap with ad hoc assumptions.

So long as one assumes a terra incognita of unknowable knowledge, there is no escape from the existential dilemma. Using Chaitin's discovery of maximal unknowability, one can recover continuity system wide -- i.e., uncomputable functions select for efficiency. What is not efficiently configured feeds back into system as negative feedback, and nothing is wasted, nothing ultimately unknowable.

This is the meaning of time dependency, with multi-scale variety.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 3, 2015 @ 20:29 GMT
Steve wrote,

"A photon is a complicated superposition of frequencies or wavelets that couples into a complicated superposition of states between quantum objects." A photon may be described as being a superposition, but a photon is not a superposition. A superposition is merely one possible mathematical description of a photon. Communications Engineers use an entirely different type of mathematical description, to describe things like photons; one based on modulation theory, rather than superposition theory. Unlike most physicists, comms engineers are familiar with both types of descriptions, and when the use of one, is more appropriate than the use of the other. Consequently, physicists are constantly mistaking the properties of their preferred, but poorly chosen description, for being properties of the entities being described. But there is no such one-to-one correspondence, in most cases. Assuming that there is, has been the source of much of the supposed "weirdness" in QM.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 2, 2015 @ 18:58 GMT
H=-K log p or S=K log p and the informations are ?

redundance and incertitude after all, the aim is to show what are the reaal events with the good sortings.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 3, 2015 @ 16:11 GMT
There is much that is true about this article...

"The book, actually first published in 1956, was W. Ross Ashby’s An Introduction to Cybernetics, which outlined a framework for unifying the sciences—the classical disciplines, that is—in terms of how systems can be controlled.

...That brings us back to that pivotal Friday afternoon in Nottingham. In An Introduction to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 4, 2015 @ 13:12 GMT
Here's another perspective on the applications of quantum-like effects to complex systems, without using entanglement:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254630
915_The_Problem_of_Quantum-Like_Representation_in_Economy_Co
gnitive_Science_and_Genetics?showFulltext=true

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 4, 2015 @ 14:29 GMT
If entanglement falls, as a fundamental principle, dynamic centrality remains.

Which opens up insight into the meaning "local realism". What is local on one scale is not necessarily local on another. Thus, requisite variety reduces to multi-scale variety. Without magic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I. Hosein wrote on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 15:50 GMT
Vacuum state

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy.

(...)

If the quantum field theory can be accurately described through perturbation theory, then the properties of the vacuum are analogous to the properties of the ground state of a quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator (or more accurately, the ground state of a QM problem). In this case the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of any field operator vanishes. For quantum field theories in which perturbation theory breaks down at low energies (for example, Quantum chromodynamics or the BCS theory of superconductivity) field operators may have non-vanishing vacuum expectation values called condensates. In the Standard Model, the non-zero vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, arising from spontaneous symmetry breaking, is the mechanism by which the other fields in the theory acquire mass.

(...)

Symmetry

For a relativistic field theory, the vacuum is Poincaré invariant, which follows from Wightman axioms but can be also proved directly without these axioms.[9] Poincaré invariance implies that only scalar combinations of field operators have non-vanishing VEV's. The VEV may break some of the internal symmetries of the Lagrangian of the field theory. In this case the vacuum has less symmetry than the theory allows, and one says that spontaneous symmetry breaking has occurred. See Higgs mechanism, standard model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Reality finds itself to exist at the lowest possible energy level or ground state (or as described by perturbation theory to be the ground state of the Quantum Mechanical Harmonic Oscillator) and may or may not escape itself at this level depending on whatever causally influences its mass (Higgs field) and energy level.

See: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/reality-is.152528/page-10

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I. Hosein wrote on Oct. 29, 2015 @ 19:10 GMT
Thank you Steve.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Mannering wrote on Nov. 6, 2015 @ 13:26 GMT
Some of the reasoning you have in play there, seems - on the face of things anyway - problematic. Cybernetics, when it first came out, had the new distinctiveness on its own terms, yes, but well below any 'stand alone' standard. It did not stand on its own in terms of new value. But it was an excellent illustration, for the 1950's audience, of the possibilities in the 'shape of things to come'. In...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Mannering wrote on Nov. 6, 2015 @ 13:28 GMT
Some of the reasoning you have in play there, seems - on the face of things anyway - problematic. Cybernetics, when it first came out, had the new distinctiveness on its own terms, yes, but well below any 'stand alone' standard. It did not stand on its own in terms of new value. But it was an excellent illustration, for the 1950's audience, of the possibilities in the 'shape of things to come'. In...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jon wrote on Dec. 11, 2015 @ 00:33 GMT
seems related to the work on top down causation of sara walker and paul davies. fascinating stuff.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rick Padua wrote on Dec. 19, 2015 @ 17:49 GMT
Diederik Aerts and his colleagues at the VUB and elsewhere have been pursuing a not dissimilar approach (applying QM principles isomorphically to macroworld social and other issues) for a couple of decades. Just noting.

One concern. All this seems to be edging fairly close to a ToE or -- not contradictory -- something akin to empirical proof that P=NP. Or am I fundamentally misreading?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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