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.

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

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

Wolfgang Baer: on 2/24/18 at 3:29am UTC, wrote Your ideaa, 'especially Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for...

Steven Andresen: on 2/23/18 at 13:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Wolfgang If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Peter Jackson: on 2/19/18 at 18:28pm UTC, wrote Wolf, Nice job, interesting, well argued, and I agree your conclusions. I...

Wolfgang Baer: on 2/14/18 at 3:55am UTC, wrote Luca: I just sent a long reply but get an error so I'll make it brief I'm...

Luca Valeri: on 2/14/18 at 2:02am UTC, wrote Hi Wolf, What a beautiful essay. The difference between Plato's view and ...

Wolfgang Baer: on 2/13/18 at 5:38am UTC, wrote There are two levels of models. The model of the processing paths which can...

Don Limuti: on 2/12/18 at 21:27pm UTC, wrote Wolfgang, In your essay you go after the "really big picture" and make it...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/5/18 at 14:28pm UTC, wrote Prof Wolfgang Baer Thank you for reading my essay…. Probably there are...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Adding the Observer to the Foundations of Physics by Wolfgang Baer [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Wolfgang Baer wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

The foundations of contemporary physics are based upon the “naïve reality” assumption that an objective physical world exists independently of the observer’s subjective experience. Yet it is clear that subjective experience is a critical aspect of reality and its presence must be included if we hope to properly account for the observer’s existence. Accommodating the observer requires abandoning the “naïve reality” assumption. A careful examination of what we do to see what we see shows that the processing steps required to explain our obvious first person experience involve a flow of action between our sensations and our memory which holds our model of whatever we believe explains those sensations. By applying a reductionist methodology to our first person view of matter, I will show that we do not objectively identify atoms or elementary particles, but rather that observers are a process that produces conceptual particles as theoretical interpretations of their subjective experiences. This suggests a tangible processing connection exists between the subjective and objective aspects of reality. By examining the architecture of quantum theory I will demonstrate that a general flow of action between the outside first person view of matter and the conceptual inside of matter is already codified in quantum physics. This examination shows that quantum theory is a linear approximation of a more comprehensive theory that treats reality as a flow of activity which processes observable experiences into theoretical models of their causes and back again. By acknowledging a ubiquitous flow of action between an objective physical world and an observer’s subjective experience, the foundations of physics are expanded. Elementary particles are replaced with elementary events happening in observers, events are implemented by a flow of physical action through sequential subjective and objective processing phases, and all systems are at least primitive observers.

Author Bio

Dr. Baer received his Ph.D. in Physics from the UC Berkeley and held a research professor position at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey California. He developed programs for unmanned aerial vehicle vision systems mimicking cognitive brain functions, which has lead to publications exploring the physics of consciousness. He has written peer reviewed articles in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and is currently writing a treatise on "Cognitive Action Theory" for Routledge Press that centers on an event oriented extension of quantum theory which fully integrates subjective and objective experiences for macroscopic phenomena.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Flavio Del Santo wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Dr. Baer,

thank you for this essay that I found interesting. The matter is obviously not new (since the first consistent formulations of QM in 1925-26 people have started wondering about this). However, modern interpretations of quantum mechanics (Rovelli's relational interpretatio, Fuchs' Qbism, information-based interpretations) definitely see the role of the observer as a central and indispensible one in physics.

Although I do not expound my ideas concerning this, you migh surely find some connections with my essay. I start from a different perspective, but immediately face the problem of "naive realism", that I dismiss as a too strict assumption.

Good luck, I rate you very high!

All the best,

Flavio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 01:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Baer,

Thanks for your comments on my essay. You have obviously given much thought to questions about fundamentality, emergence, and consciousness.

In reading your essay, I find that it contains a number of points worthy of comment, but I will ask a question about the mental domain and the physical domain as the interior and exterior of matter, respectively. You discuss this particularly on pages 5 and 6. Would you say that that we know the interior (the mental domain) directly and perhaps with certainty, while we have to infer the exterior (the physical domain)? I am not fully clear about this.

In any event, you have some good ideas for unifying our view of the world.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 03:59 GMT
Dear Wolfgang,

Since you injected the Magic Theater into FQXi, I'll use it as an occasion to answer a little more metaphorically than usual. Harry Haller was warned against "putting too high a value on time. … It is the 'eternity at the back of time' that is the kingdom of truth. The magic theater; the world of pictures, not realities."

It's possible that the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wolfgang Baer replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 06:04 GMT
Edwin:

I've been interested into properly including the observer into physics since my PhD THesis at UC Berkeley and if one steps outside of physics it decomes a demonstrable fact that that what we directly experience - such as these letters in front of your nose - is a personal mental display produced as the product of external sensory interactions, whose purpose is to display survival information and define control leavers for us to manage our sensation. The 3D display we are used to is probably characteristics of predator mammals and quite different for insects, fish. I believe the ter Magic Theater, 3d eye, visual ego, etc. are alternative names for this display.

Such a display is in the processing path of all observer/actor systems independent of the detailed content. Thus the existence of the processing path is more fundamental than what we see and the physics of the processing paths is more fundamental than the classic physics built to explain what we see.

Einstein was a realist and his Rail car thought experiment was conceived in in a single fundamental background space which imposes characteristics on moving systems you point out in your essay. That background space was Einstein's own imagination and he systematically dismissed it as being non physical, leaving observers with coordinate frames defining their own time. Which as you point out is incorrect.

But he also also assumed the observers in his thought experiment were real not simply appearances in his own space. If he had kept his own imagination and given each of his observers their own imagination he would have come up with a multiverse of interacting process loops each of which runs at their own tims. That is the world view I am attempting to develop.

Your paper does much to dispel much of Einsteins unassailable aura. I hope you win, I'm sure my ideas have no chance.

best wishes

Wolfgang

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Professor Wolfgang Baer

Very Important words… “By applying a reductionist methodology to our first person view of matter, I will show that we do not objectively identify atoms or elementary particles, but rather that observers are a process that produces conceptual particles as theoretical interpretations of their subjective experiences. This suggests a tangible processing...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT
Prof Wolfgang Baer

Thank you for reading my essay….

Probably there are slight confusions, here the photons are moving grazingly near the mass. There will be one relative velocity between photon ray and mass. It will be irrespective of coming near the mass or going away from mass…..

I said, this phenomenon can be observed on a solar eclipse day….. not exactly … “ during a solar eclipse the photon changes its frequency”

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 21:27 GMT
Wolfgang,

In your essay you go after the "really big picture" and make it look easy. And you also do this as part of your company Nascent Systems. Wow!

Your response to Edwin was so concise I will repeat it here: "Thus the existence of the processing path is more fundamental than what we see and the physics of the processing paths is more fundamental than the classic physics built to explain what we see."

Yes, without question!

Of course there are Questions:)

1. Do you see your model as self referencing?

2. I assume there will be "oscillations" in your model. Do you see this? Any insights about this?

Do visit my essay, it is possible we may be working together in the future.

Thanks for your most profound and ambitious essay.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Wolfgang Baer wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 05:38 GMT
There are two levels of models. The model of the processing paths which can only be "seen" as a symbol that references our bigger self doing the processing, and the model within that bigger process that is intended to represent the reality with which the bigger self interacts. So I would like to say self regenerating rather than self referencing

My model assumes activities, forms of action, processes are fundamental when these activities are small enough so they are reversible and do not destroy the medium (Hilbert space)then we get the quantum approximation, When such activities become larger they include the construction and destruction of the Hilbert space. In the Lab this means including the experimenter and his construction and interpretation of his experiment. This level of activity applied to the human experience would correspond to the observation of moving objects which do not destroy the space in which they are observed and the destruction of the space itself.

An essay by Chandra Roychoudhuri, postulates a tension field that may be a candidate for the underlying space but it is not well developed. I'll look at your paper and perhps we can work together

Wolf

Bookmark and Share



Luca Valeri wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 02:02 GMT
Hi Wolf,

What a beautiful essay. The difference between Plato's view and Aristotle's is nicely worked out. Although I personally feel, that Plato's hidden reality of ideal geometrical figures corresponds more to a hidden variable approach to physics. I belief - and I think that matches also your model - that the observer has a more active role, where the math is brought in by his...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Wolfgang Baer wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 03:55 GMT
Luca:

I just sent a long reply but get an error so I'll make it brief

I'm not a fan of Platos ideals instead believe the prisoners write their oen theories on books in front of them based on the evidence they do see

There must be some distinction between what we directly experience and how we explain those experiences. We see objects and thing there is mass. No one has ever experienced mass it is a theoretical inference

Will check out your paper seem we have alot in common

Wolf

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 18:28 GMT
Wolf,

Nice job, interesting, well argued, and I agree your conclusions. I analysed pre & post lens states (scored 7th) here fqXi 2012, Much Ado About Nothing. & 2013 finding important implications which agree & extend yours.

I like your QM analysis but suggest it's incomplete; Consider; Send A,B states with parallel polar axes, so A= N(S) B= S(N). Equip A.B with polariser electrons flipped by a dial. Think 'momentum transfer'; They find 'opposite'. Now B turns his dial 180o & they find 'same'. Non-loclity is not needed! As surface momenta (at all radii) is non-linear by Cos latitude, and spheres have 3 spin axes.... praps read my essay!

Your Architecture kinda still stands but may stand refurbishment. Copenhagen would also needs a bit of redevelopment!

Top job on the scoring criteria anyway. Hope you get to read mine & can follow the mechanism, (also see Declan Traill's for matching code & CHSH >2 plots).

very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:03 GMT
Dear Wolfgang

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Wolfgang Baer wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 03:29 GMT
Your ideaa, 'especially Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity" sounds interesting

will take a look

Wolf

Bookmark and Share



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.