"But what do scientists hope quantum computers will be good for, eventually?"
What they hope for and what they will ever achieve are two very different things. See my comments about this on the Quanta website
Rob McEachern
Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 25, 2019 @ 02:47 GMT
Mathematical algorithms can be described by equations.
Algorithms are used to numerically solve equations, so the equation being solved, may be represented by the algorithm, in an implicit, rather than explicit form.
The polarization detector employed in my paper, is a type of
Matched Filtering algorithm.
Contrary to popular belief, Quantum Theory
does not describe the behavior of the "micro world"; it merely describes the behavior of detectors, interacting with the "micro world". The failure to appreciate that distinction, is why quantum theory has never been understood.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 25, 2019 @ 21:47 GMT
Rob,
1. I spent a large part of my working life writing algorithms: algorithms cannot be “described by equations”, and equations do not represent algorithms “in an implicit … form”. I.e. equations do not logically imply algorithms.
2. Algorithms are an entirely different type of thing to equations. Equations symbolically represent relationships between variables so that numeric values for variables can be deduced from the equation. But an algorithm might (symbolically) look at the variables from several different equations, and depending on their numeric values, change just one of their numeric values, or change the numeric value of another completely unrelated variable. Equations represent relationships; equations cannot handle a wider situation; algorithms can represent how to handle a wider situation.
3. The “law of nature” equations of physics symbolically represent relationships in the micro-world, not algorithmic steps. I.e. physics is saying that deterministic relationships exist in the micro-world, but physics does not conceive of the possibility that responding to a wider situation could happen at the micro-world level.
4. The problem is: how do you get from a micro-world where relationships and outcomes are represented by equations, variables and numbers to a macro-world where wider situations are being handled (i.e. to a macro-world representable by algorithmic steps). I’m saying that algorithmic steps, i.e. responding to wider situations, must exist in a primitive form at the micro-level: i.e. quantum behaviour.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 26, 2019 @ 00:27 GMT
Re: algorithms cannot be “described by equations”
Newton's iteration algorithm for the sqrt(Q) is described by the equation:
x
n = 0.5(x
n-1 + Q/(x
n-1))
My
Numerical Analysis book gives hundreds of other examples.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 26, 2019 @ 23:05 GMT
Rob,
1. The actual equation is: x = √Q . Your equation is not exactly an equation, but a special symbolic representation of a method of solving x = √Q (i.e. finding numeric values for x, given a numeric value for Q) which includes the repeated use of another equation. Even then, this method does not imply the actual algorithmic steps that a person might take e.g. a person might write detailed computer code to solve the equation x = √Q , and even then, different people might write different code.
I.e. the equation x = √Q represents a relationship. The relationship does not imply the range of possible steps that a curious person might take if they wanted to find numeric values for x, given Q.
2. “Law of nature” equations represent relationships that have been found to exist in the micro-world. An exception is the use of the delta symbol in equations: the delta symbol represents hidden algorithmic steps. I.e. seemingly physics is already assuming that the micro-world is somehow performing algorithmic steps, without physics properly acknowledging it.
So I’m saying that algorithmic steps, i.e. things that are not relationships, and can’t be represented as equations, seemingly exist in a primitive form at the micro-level.
3. This is relevant to the problem of how you get from a micro-world where relationships and outcomes are presumed to be represented by nothing but equations, variables and numbers to a macro-world where wider situations are being handled (i.e. to a macro-world representable by algorithmic steps).
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 27, 2019 @ 00:06 GMT
"Your equation is not exactly an equation": It has an "=" sign. That is exactly what is meant by the word "equation"; one side
equals the other.
"a special symbolic representation of a method of solving x = √Q": Making it an equation, representing a specific algorithm, for solving a specific equation.
"this method does not imply the actual algorithmic steps that a person might take": It "implies" nothing, instead, it
demands a very specific set of steps. What computer language is used to implement those steps is of no concern. You do not even need to use a computer. You can work through the algorithm, with pencil and paper.
"The relationship does not imply the range of possible steps that a curious person might take if they wanted to find numeric values for x, given Q." The equation defining the algorithm, demands a precisely specified set of steps that
must be performed, to implement the specified algorithm.
"seemingly physics is already assuming that the micro-world is somehow performing algorithmic steps" Of course it is. The equations of mathematical physics merely state the equations that nature seems to be "solving", not
how they are being solved (the algorithm), by either nature or by the physicists themselves. Stating an equation, and stating how to solve it, are two entirely different things. The problem is (and I think this is related to your point) the actual algorithm being used, by nature, matters just as much as the equation being solved, because different algorithms require different physical resources to implement them. So one of the long-standing questions in quantum physics is "Does nature require a mysterious resource known as
spooky action at a distance, in order to implement/solve the equations of quantum theory?" My answer is "No"; that is what my paper demonstrates.
Rob McEachern
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 27, 2019 @ 04:32 GMT
Rob,
Your equation [1] includes
special symbols so that it represents a stepwise
method to solve a different equation (i.e. x = √Q), using your equation stripped of its special symbols, and where the n-1 subscript to the x represents numeric values taken from the previous step in the method.
On the other hand, the equation x = √Q is a static relationship which does not imply that there is something that needs to be solved. I.e. it does not imply any methods or algorithms.
What is relevant from the point of view of physics is that your equation does not represent a relationship in the same sense that “law of nature” equations represent relationships. But the equation x = √Q
does represent a relationship in the same sense that “law of nature” equations represent relationships.
One thing we can be sure of is that, although law of nature relationships that are representable by equations exist in the micro-world, the micro-world is not solving equations (there are no brains or computers at the micro-level). However, the micro-world is clearly behaving in ways that can be represented as simple algorithmic steps.
The difference between equations and algorithms is that equations can represent nothing but fixed relationships (there are no steps involved), but algorithms are capable of representing everything from simple steps to complex analysis of, and complex responses to, situations.
1. I am calling it “your equation” because I have not yet found the spare time to investigate how to insert equations into the text. Sorry :-)
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 27, 2019 @ 15:23 GMT
"it represents a stepwise method" Exactly - that is what an algorithm is.
"your equation does not represent a relationship in the same sense that “law of nature” equations represent relationships." Exactly - the latter represents an equation
to be solved and the former represents a method (algorithm) to be
used to solve it.
"the micro-world is not solving equations" It solves them in the sense of an analog computer, not a digital computer; the physical process itself
is the computer - the question is, how well do all the equations describe
that "computer" - and the problem is, in physics, the equations do not describe the method/algorithm
being used by
that "computer" at all. In others words, as is commonly stated, physics only describes
what happens, but not
how or why it happens. As an example, consider the equation for Newton's inverse-square law of gravity. In order to
solve the equation, one needs to know the positions and velocities of all the masses involved. But how in the world is some dust-speck, floating in space, ever supposed to acquire all the needed information about all the
other masses, that it is supposed to respond to? That is what "spooky action at a distance" is ultimately all about. Einstein attempted to solve that problem by saying that the required information can be obtained from the curvature of spacetime, in the vicinity of the dust-speck; but how in the world is a dust-speck supposed to be able to
detect that?
What is completely missing from the standard picture created by physicists, is an account of exactly how dust-specks, electrons and everything else, actually
acquire information about their own environment, thereby enabling them to
respond appropriately to their environment. Shannon's Information Theory provides the answer. That is the point of my paper.
Rob McEachern
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 27, 2019 @ 21:36 GMT
Rob,
Can we get 2 things clear?
1. Human beings use symbols to represent things, symbols have meaning to human beings. Equations are denoted by a set of symbols representing variables and numbers and mathematical operators; equations represent relationships; equations (e.g. the equations that represent laws of nature) imply nothing more than a relationship. IF you add extra subscript symbols to a variable like in your equation, you are symbolising that
this equation is not just an equation, it is part of a stepwise procedure. The equations representing laws of nature do not have subscripts appended to the variables i.e. the equations do not indicate a stepwise procedure. Agreed?
2. There is no “solving” of equations (i.e. finding numbers for the variables that make the equation true) going on in the micro-world. That’s something that human beings, and human beings aided by computers, do. Solving equations requires an ability to manipulate variables and numbers, storing and recalling intermediate results, et cetera. I.e. solving equations requires an infrastructure that doesn’t exist in the micro-world. There are no miracles going on: the micro-world is not solving equations. Agreed?
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 28, 2019 @ 00:30 GMT
1. "Human beings use symbols to represent things" So does nature; for example, DNA uses a form of code, to represent which molecules are to be constructed, via a process
programmed via the code. The discrete energy levels of electrons in atoms can also be thought of as a code, that directly impacts how other atoms get
programmed to behave when they encounter each other.
"you...
view entire post
1. "Human beings use symbols to represent things" So does nature; for example, DNA uses a form of code, to represent which molecules are to be constructed, via a process
programmed via the code. The discrete energy levels of electrons in atoms can also be thought of as a code, that directly impacts how other atoms get
programmed to behave when they encounter each other.
"you are symbolising that this equation is not just an equation" That is like saying that a human being is not just a human being. That is true. A human being is also a mammal and also a son or daughter. But that does not change the fact that humans are humans and equations are equations.
"The equations representing laws of nature do not have subscripts appended to the variables" - because they are analog processes - with continuous variables, not discrete, indexable ones, so of course there are no subscripts. There is no "stepwise procedure" precisely because there are no discrete "steps" in the continuous, analog world.
2. Your old analog radio processes information - it "solves" equations. So does your auditory system. I personally have developed many digital signal processing algorithms to implement digital techniques for processing old analog radio and telephone signals, and others that process sounds in a manner that can be described as being the digital equivalent of the analog processing within the human auditory system. Some of those algorithms were implemented in software computer codes. Others were implemented in hardwired digital circuitry with no software at all. But the analog world figured out how to do it first - there were analog, vinyl records before there were Compact Discs (CDs) - No miracles were required, nor were any "computers". Pick up any old electrical engineering text book, and you will find detailed descriptions of both the equations that need to be solved, and the equations describing the analog signal processing algorithms being used to solve them.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 29, 2019 @ 22:49 GMT
Rob,
Way back when I was studying Information Science at university, I could never subscribe to their view of information, a mistaken view of information that is still considered to be gospel truth today, a mistaken view of information that continues to cause endless confusion. Your views indicate to me that you subscribe to this erroneous view of information. The erroneous view of information conflates symbolic representations with the word “information”.
So what are codes and what is information?
A code is made up of symbols, arrangements of the symbols and possible re-symbolisations of arranged symbols. Human beings create and understand codes i.e. complex symbolic representations like letters, words, sentences, equations, numbers, binary digits and computer programs. And human beings have caused words to be re-symbolised as binary digits, and re-symbolised binary digits as voltages in digital computers, thereby creating layers of symbolisation.
These codes and symbols don’t have an independent or absolute meaning: the computer voltages only represents binary digits and words and sentences from the point of view of human beings: the computer itself does not know that the individual voltages and the sets and sequences of voltages are meant to represent something else entirely.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 29, 2019 @ 22:54 GMT
(continued)
A code, i.e. a symbolic representation of a thing, is completely different to the thing itself e.g. the word “computer” is completely different to an actual computer. So, contrary to what you say, the “discrete energy levels of electrons in atoms” are not an actual code because the energy levels are not a symbolic representation of something else. From whose point of view are you suggesting that the energy levels could represent a code: the atom? Seemingly you are suggesting that human beings could USE the energy levels to represent OUR codes? It is important to remember that codes only exist from a point of view.
The confusion about “information” continues to this day seemingly because of people’s inability to face up to the embarrassing fact that the symbolic representations (e.g. words, sentences, binary digits and computer programs) are symbolic representations of the content of human consciousness; i.e. human (or other) consciousness the actual information. I.e. consciousness is the source of symbolic representations and codes.
Re DNA:
An RNA molecule acquires information from interacting with a DNA molecule, all without the RNA molecule having a brain. This seems to indicate that the IF/THEN logical/algorithmic information acquired by the RNA is somehow a fundamental aspect of the world, in addition to law of nature relationships and physical matter. As I have previously tried to explain to you, equations (representing relationships) do not imply algorithmic steps.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 30, 2019 @ 02:19 GMT
"The erroneous view of information conflates symbolic representations with the word “information”." In Shannon's Information Theory, "information" has nothing to do with your conception of "symbolic representation". Information consists of the smallest possible set of bits, extracted from a continuous mathematical function, that is
sufficient to "perfectly" reconstruct that function; when the extraction/reconstruction is done correctly, then the bits recovered from a reconstructed copy, will be identical (with
no errors in any bits) to those recovered from the original function. In other words, the bits represent the function (curve) they were extracted from, and nothing else. If a human subsequently assigns a "meaning" to a particular function/curve, such as when a human assigns the word "cow" to a sound pressure wave (function) propagating through the air, then that is the point at which your "symbolic representation" and human consciousness enters into the picture. But such assigned "meanings" have nothing at all to do with the fact that the information bits enable the perfect reproduction/copying of the waveforms "symbolizing" the words. This is what enables a CD player to accurately reconstruct an auditory waveform (pressure wave in air) from a bit pattern stored on the CD, that a human listner, not the player, may be able to recognize as music, speech, the sound of thunder or something else.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 1, 2019 @ 21:31 GMT
Rob,
Whether speaking or writing, words or equations, human beings do so by using symbols and codes. This is so automatic that people don’t even notice that this is what they are doing all the time, so they now find it difficult to disentangle meaning from symbols of meaning. However, one needs to disentangle these things if one is discussing how people and electrons “acquir[e] information” [1].
Meanings are not “assigned” to pre-existing symbols: on the contrary, the meanings (i.e. the information) came first, and human beings represent the information content of their consciousness with symbols and codes that they created themselves. Whether speaking or writing, human beings use symbols and codes that they have created, so naturally the symbols and codes have meaning from the point of view of human beings. A bit is merely a further level of symbolic representation created by human beings, and human beings use electrical voltage to re-represents bits in a computer, but a computer does not understand that the voltages are meant to represent something else.
Human consciousness and human beings’ ability to investigate and represent the world and relationships with words, bits, equations and functions are what made scientific knowledge possible, and thereby enabled human beings to create CDs and computers. Don’t forget who had the high-level knowledge and ability to make these things: it was human beings: human consciousness came first.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 1, 2019 @ 21:37 GMT
(continued)
Shannon's “Information” Theory should be called Shannon's “Symbolic Representations” Theory because a bit is nothing more than a symbolic representation of something else.
Particles, atoms and molecules are not using symbols or codes, they can only be dealing with un-coded information, because they haven’t got brains. They seem to be acquiring un-coded point-of-view information from their surrounding situation. We represent the type of inform they acquire with symbols: 1) numbers; 2) variables (variables entail law of nature relationships because variables only exist in relationship); and the new one is 3) symbols representing logical/algorithmic information and how logical/algorithmic information is acquired.
1. “…an account of exactly how dust-specks, electrons and everything else, actually
acquire information about their own environment, thereby enabling them to
respond appropriately to their environment. Shannon's Information Theory provides the answer. That is the point of my paper.” Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 27, 2019 @ 15:23 GMT
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 1, 2019 @ 23:55 GMT
The dichotomy of Object reality, material existence, independent of observation and Image reality, the semblance of external reality generated by an observer, (organic or device) or sensitive material is relevant. The surface condition of the CD is a material Object reality, it does not need to be observed to be in that condition. When the CD is played music is heard. That music is an Image reality generated by the observer/s from the pressure wave sensory input.It is something new that does not come to be without an observer. The music is not in the room but in the minds hearing. Many people in the room can agree on the music playing (name of song, singer, composer) so it is an objective reality. However the connotations that music has for the individuals can be different.E.g. happy or sad memories. Sources of sensory input are not all man-made like the CD.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 2, 2019 @ 00:01 GMT
"a bit is nothing more than a symbolic representation of something else"
Just draw an arbitrary squiggle - it means nothing and represents nothing other than its own existence - but it none-the-less has a quantitative information content, that describes the exact shape of the squiggle. Bits of
information, only represent the shape of the squiggle they were derived from. The squiggle need not be a "symbolic representation" of anything.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 2, 2019 @ 12:45 GMT
Rob,
What you are saying reminds me of the following problem: is there anyone or anything in the whole universe that has detailed knowledge of what happens to an individual piece of paper or plastic after one has placed it in the rubbish bin, and the rubbish has been collected by the local council? And the answer is that this type of information, about the fate of an individual piece of paper or plastic, simply doesn’t exist, either in the universe or anywhere else. There is nothing in the universe keeping track of these individual pieces of paper or plastic.
Similarly, there is nothing in the whole universe or anywhere else keeping track of squiggles; and there is nowhere in the whole universe or anywhere else where a “quantitative information content, that describes the exact shape of the squiggle” just abstractly exists.
Any information about the squiggle only exists from the point of view of an observer of the squiggle. This information has nothing to do with binary digits.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 2, 2019 @ 15:46 GMT
The universe, in its entirety,
is keeping track of where everything
is - in the sense that everything ends up exactly where the universe put it. It is not even a logical possibility for it to be anywhere other than where it is - right where the universe put it. The fact that
you or any other little piece of the universe does not "know" where all the other little pieces are or...
view entire post
The universe, in its entirety,
is keeping track of where everything
is - in the sense that everything ends up exactly where the universe put it. It is not even a logical possibility for it to be anywhere other than where it is - right where the universe put it. The fact that
you or any other little piece of the universe does not "know" where all the other little pieces are or how they came to be there, is irrelevant to that simple fact.
The only real question of interest (which you are totally ignoring) is: "Are there ever
any circumstances, in which some little piece of the universe, such as yourself,
can indeed succeed in determining where some other little piece is going to end up, before it actually gets there?" The fact that this may not be possible for everything, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it can be done for some things. And since it is known that it
can be done for some things, the only truly fundamental question is "What fundamental conditions determine when it can be done and when it cannot be done?" That is what Information theory is all about.
For example, if "Rob" were to draw a little squiggle on a piece of paper, is it possible that "Lorraine" could ever reproduce that squiggle on another piece of paper? Would it be possible if "Rob" sent "Lorraine" a message that instructed "Lorraine" how to do it? Even when that message gets corrupted by noise? If
that is possible, then what is the
shortest possible message (least number of bits) that "Rob" must send to "Lorraine", that would enable "Lorraine" to perfectly reproduce that squiggle on another piece of paper? Does it matter if "Rob" and "Lorraine" are conscious beings? Or could two computer systems accomplish such a task? "Information" is defined as that "shortest possible message". So, "Rob" could certainly photograph the squiggle and send a JPEG compressed copy of the photograph to "Lorraine", but the JPEG copy is not the "shortest possible message". What is? How can it be constructed? Would "Lorraine" even have a clue about how to decode such a message? How could "Lorraine" ever acquire the "knowledge" needed to decode such a message? By sending "Lorraine" another message with an "app" to decode it? What is the shortest possible decoding app? Answering these types of questions is what Information theory is all about. And the fact that you can even read
this message on a smart phone, demonstrates that some pretty good answers to these types of questions, already exist in the reality in which we presently find ourselves.
It is time to start applying
that knowledge to fundamental physics; because it is now
known that this "information" (not qubits) is what The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which is easily shown to
correspond to the shortest message of all, namely a message of exactly one bit) and all the "weirdness" of quantum theory, is ultimately all about. Which brings us back to the original question, concerning quantum computers, attempting to exploit "qubits".
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 2, 2019 @ 23:58 GMT
Rob,
There is no such entity as the “universe, in its entirety, [that]
is keeping track of where everything
is” i.e. there is no such God.
What exists at the particle, atomic and molecular level is the type of information that is represented by numbers, variables, physics’ “law of nature” equations, and seemingly some basic logical information about atomic/molecular structure, seemingly acquired by atoms and molecules from particle interactions. Even though no questions are actually being asked, we would symbolically represent this type of logical information acquired by atoms and molecules as 1) primitive questions asked and 2) primitive answers given (i.e. the answers mean
nothing without the context of the questions).
However, atoms and molecules do not have the physical infrastructure to acquire logical information in the same way that living things acquire logical information, so: 1) primitive-level logical information is seemingly acquired without physical infrastructure; and 2) the logical information that atoms and molecules might acquire is limited. No wider, larger, higher-level information about situations or the universe can begin to exist until you have living things with their ability to logically analyse their surroundings. But all information only exists from a point of view.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 00:03 GMT
(continued)
No messages are being sent at a particle, atomic or molecular level, although new number information is continually being input to the universe from “quantum events” (this number input is seemingly the only thing keeping the system moving). Human beings (and other living things to a lesser extent) use codes they have created to send messages, utilising the lawful and logical properties of nature to represent and send the codes.
Quantum computers, computers, and binary digits are all about human beings utilising codes, i.e.
symbolic representations of information, and utilising the lawful and logical properties of nature to represent and send the codes. Human analysis of the situation has found the “shortest possible” symbolic representation of codes.
A binary digit is a mere concept. A binary digit does not exist in isolation, it always represents something else e.g. a binary digit can represent the answer to a question, or an arrangement of binary digits can represent words or numbers etc. A binary digit is physically represented by e.g. an electrical voltage. From the point of view of human beings, electrical voltages can be utilised to represent information.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 03:48 GMT
Where exactly do you suppose information about a distant star comes from, if not from the star itself? How is this information communicated to (obtained by) anyone on earth?
I am not asking about your "symbolic representations of information", but about the information itself - the stuff that is going to be represented, whatever you think that may be. Where did it come from and how do you determine the correct number and type of symbols needed to
perfectly represent it? - By which I mean leaving none of the information unrepresented and adding nothing to the representation, beyond what is "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in regards to that information.
Rob McEachern
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 05:36 GMT
The input to organisms sensory systems and observation devices is not used to generate the most perfect representation but one that is useful for comprehension. Boundaries are emphasized by visual system which helps identify different objects. The colours are limited by the organisms particular photo receptors, giving some indication of different materials. Astronomical images scan have false colours that provide more information about different parts makeup than natural low contrast colours. Visual systems are able to gap fill from experience, providing additional information to give a comprehensible scene. Existence which is not generated by observation is home to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth. Observed 'reality',is a partial construct, enhanced and filled and subjective in precise makeup to an individual processing system.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 13:21 GMT
Rob,
Re “Where exactly do you suppose information about a distant star comes from, if not from the star itself? How is this information communicated to (obtained by) anyone on earth?”:
Seemingly, high-level information about a distant star is acquired by a person in the same way that high-level information about a squiggle on a piece of paper is acquired, or high-level information about the taste of food is acquired, or high-level information that a tiger is approaching is acquired: 1) basic-level particle interactions result in basic-level non-coded information being acquired by the person’s eyes or tongue; and 2) what is, in effect, analysis and collation of this basic-level non-coded information, results in high-level non-coded information being acquired by the person.
There is no “communication” involved: the star is not
communicating i.e. sending coded messages to the person; the food is not
communicating i.e. sending coded messages to the person.
But if someone
was trying to communicate (i.e. speak or write) with the person, then where is the code located?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 13:29 GMT
(continued)
Answer: Basic-level information is always the same: it’s what physics represents with numbers and variables (where the variables entail law of nature relationships, because the variables only exist as part of these relationships). Any code can only exist in the pattern of the numbers; any code can only be recognised by analysing patterns in the numbers. So the above step 2 becomes: 2) if what is, in effect, analysis and collation of basic-level non-coded information concludes that speech or writing symbols are involved, rather than a tiger or food being involved, then decoding and further analysis and collation are required, resulting in high-level non-coded information being acquired by the person.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 15:06 GMT
Lorraine:
"it’s what physics represents" I did not ask you about what human physicists are representing. I asked you about what the real, physical world is doing. The "symbolic representation"
Coke is not the real thing. The dark beverage is the real thing. I am asking about the real thing. Where does your "non-coded" information reside within the real things in the world? How much...
view entire post
Lorraine:
"it’s what physics represents" I did not ask you about what human physicists are representing. I asked you about what the real, physical world is doing. The "symbolic representation"
Coke is not the real thing. The dark beverage is the real thing. I am asking about the real thing. Where does your "non-coded" information reside within the real things in the world? How much of it exists, within any given real thing? How do you ever recognize it as being a kind of information in the first place? How did you decide that such "non-coded" Information is worthy (
or not) of being translated into "coded information"? What is being coded? What is not?
Georgina:
"input to organisms sensory systems and observation devices is not used to generate the most perfect representation but one that is useful for comprehension" The issue is not how the "real thing" is actually being used by a novice. The issue is, how is the "real thing" capable of being used by the world's greatest expert? Think of a paleontologist who wishes to perform a detailed examination of a rare fossil, but because of its rarity and fragility, is only allowed to examine a reproduction of the fossil. Is the novice's "representation" of the real thing a good-enough representation to preserve
every detail existing in the real thing, that the expert might consider to be important?
To both of you:
The issue is: Is some "representation" produced by a person that does not possess the knowledge of the world's greatest
possible future expert, good enough to substitute for the "real thing"?
This is a real issue. This is why modern archaeologists leave some of their sites unexcavated, so that they do not destroy some "non-coded" information in their primitive attempts at producing inadequate "coded" representations of their own findings. The same is true of all attempts at any measurements. Did some novice destroy, or misinterpret, an important subset of the "evidence" in their crude attempt at analyzing and "representing" it? This is exactly the problem in quantum physics today: theoretical physicists are only studying the "properties of
crude representations" of the "real world" (the properties of their own equations), not the properties of the real world itself. Unfortunately, the two are not the same: the "real world" has some very interesting and important properties (like entities capable of manifesting only a single bit of information) that have been
completely overlooked within the existing "representations" - and thereby spawning all the nonsensical beliefs in "quantum weirdness".
This is
literally the problem in the EPR paradox and Bell tests: Because of concerns that a second measurement of a particle might be incorrect due to a disturbance caused by a first measurement (a fragile fossil) - the entire experiment
assumes that it will be
OK to make the second measurement on a
reproduced copy. But the real world is not capable of reproducing a good-enough copy, for that trick to work. The scientists are making one measurement on the "real fossil" and the second measurement on a "reproduction of the fossil" but the reproduction is not even close to being good-enough to support the conclusions they are attempting to draw by comparing the two.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 22:57 GMT
ERP: Potential outcomes, probabilities, maybes pertain to the "unwritten future". That kind of future does not materially exist. They should not be muddled with existence ( at unitemporal-Now.) A measurement is the product of a particular relation established with the material beable, that provides a knowable output. Upon measurement of the first particle the particular relation is established. The knowable output allows the outcome of the "partner" particle undergoing the same measurement relation to be certainly known. However there is 'state latency'. The certainly known probable outcome does not become a material reality (become actualized) until the relation giving that measurement is established. There is no communication between separated partner particles.That is a problem for the Space- time continuum model in which future outcomes exist. It is not problematic for a unitemporal material existence (-Now), with observation products providing Relativity of measurements and non simultaneity of observed events.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 23:14 GMT
Rob,
If you are talking about code (symbolic representation), it is
absolutely necessary to disentangle: 1) what are symbolic representations of something; 2) what is the something that is being represented (which may itself be another code); and 3) what is something that is not a representation. It is
absolutely necessary to be clear about these distinctions.
Despite that fact that Coke is a liquid in a bottle, the word “Coke” is a symbolic representation created by human beings: the word “Coke” represents the content of human consciousness. The word “Coke” is used by human beings when attempting to communicate a message about the liquid in the bottle. There is a human being in the picture, not just liquid in a bottle and a symbolic representation (i.e. a word).
What physics symbolically represents with numbers, variables and law of nature equations is 3 above, i.e. something that is not a representation. There is no representation involved except on the part of human beings (physicists). There are seemingly 2 distinct things in the micro-world, and neither of them are codes (symbolic representations): A) point of view information acquired by the physical elements of the micro-world about B) (what we would represent as) the numbers, variables and law of nature relationships that exist in the micro-world. There are no codes in the micro-world: the micro-world does not have the physical infrastructure required for codes.
In particular, binary digits do not exist in the micro-world because binary digits are human creations used for human purposes.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 23:28 GMT
Hi Robert, good enough depends on the use to which the reproduction is put. Sensory systems emphasize what is likely to be important to the organism. A summary of a lengthy document may be more useful than the entire work, as can a simplified plan with highlighted areas of special interest. I have been thinking about "nothing but the truth' in regard to mimicry and camouflage. The material reality is the whole truth, a creature with a form resembling a different creature or feature of the environment. The observation product is partial and has been processed to make sense, leading to mis-identification. The 'lie' is with the observation product. An insect, for example, need not become an actual leaf or stick, so long as enough of their kind avoid detection and can reproduce. A forgery need only be good enough to fool non experts, most people.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 4, 2019 @ 01:22 GMT
Hi Lorraine, re. your "What physics symbolically represents with numbers, variables and law of nature equations is 3 above, i.e. something that is not a representation. There is no representation involved except on the part of human beings (physicists)." When a measurement is made a number replaces the symbol for the unknown value of a particular measurable. A measurable's value is found by establishing the relations with a beable that will provide a knowable output. Without establishing and carrying out the method the quantified measurement is not actualized, though its value can be predicted. A measurable's numerical value is a product of the measurement relation with the beable. Its numerical value depends on that relation. Eg. using a decimal or imperial ruler. In contrast beables are materially existent, independent of observation or measurement.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 4, 2019 @ 18:50 GMT
On mimicry and camouflage: I wrote that the partial and enhanced observation product can lead to mis-identification. It need not even be that but non identification as an object of interest. However, if for example a leaf started to scurry along a branch that would be of interest. Form, colour, maybe pattern or even texture as well as behaviour are relevant for going unnoticed or misidentified.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 4, 2019 @ 19:13 GMT
Lorraine,
Without establishing and carrying out the method the quantified measurement is not actualized, though its value can be predicted. I do not mean by that that accurate prediction of the value can always be made -but sometimes it can. If told that ten strips of paper have been cut to the same length and one can be measured, a sensible prediction would be that the other nine are the same length. However that can only be verified by measurement of them all. "Cut to the same length" could have meant cut roughly the same length without measurement.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 4, 2019 @ 23:39 GMT
Georgina,
I believe that physicists can take accurate measurements.
The measurement results are symbolic representations: variables (e.g. length, mass) and numbers; the number means nothing without the category it belongs to i.e. the variable.
Physics assumes that, with further analysis, these results can be relied on to infer things about the world. I believe that this is a valid assumption.
I have no idea why you are concerned about these measurements.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 5, 2019 @ 14:00 GMT
"I believe that physicists can take accurate measurements."
That is exactly the problem. Your belief is utterly unfounded. That is the entire point of Shannon's Information Theory - there are only very special circumstances under which "physicists (or anyone else) can take accurate measurements". Shannon's Information Theory (unlike any other of the numerous flavors of "information" ...
view entire post
"I believe that physicists can take accurate measurements."
That is exactly the problem. Your belief is utterly unfounded. That is the entire point of
Shannon's Information Theory - there are only very special circumstances under which "physicists (or anyone else) can take accurate measurements". Shannon's Information Theory (unlike any other of the numerous flavors of "information" theories that you may happen to be familiar with) is precisely the study of those circumstances.
Unfortunately (for all the physicists lost in endless speculations about what is happening in the real world) the "quantum realm" is precisely the realm in which the circumstances that Shannon described,
inevitably prevent the ability to "take accurate measurements." That is what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is all about.
"Physics assumes that, with further analysis, these results can be relied on to infer things about the world."
Exactly. But when the circumstances of the measurements are such that they,
inevitably produce the exact opposite result (a bit error) than the "true" value, all
those "results can
not be relied on to infer things about the world."
The entire significance of "binary digits" (have you ever wondered why Shannon used log base-2 rather than natural or common logs?) resides in the fact that in that representation, there is only one significant bit. So getting that single bit wrong is not just some minor, insignificant change to the "least significant bit" in a measurement or "representation", it results in the
exact opposite of the "true" measurement or "representation" - which in turn, results in no small impact about subsequent inferences "about the world."
"I have no idea why you are concerned about these measurements."
Because, when each of the "measurements" only produces one bit of "information" (like "spin-up" or "spin-down), and the circumstances under which those measurements are being made, absolutely guarantee that a significant fraction of all the measurements
must have the
exact opposite value than the "true" value, then woe, endless woe, unto any physicists that ever attempt to infer anything about the real world, from that set of highly corrupted measurements: garbage in - garbage out. This is what "entanglement" is all about, and why it seems so strange.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 5, 2019 @ 22:20 GMT
Rob,
Re my words e.g.: “I believe that physicists can take accurate measurements”:
You can see that I am talking about human beings (physicists). But you are referring to the problem of sending accurate reliable coded messages in telecommunications and computing. Which has got nothing to do with physicists taking measurements because:
A thing being measured is not sending a coded message to the physicist, and the physicist is not sending a coded message to the thing being measured. Similarly, the quantum realm is not sending coded messages to us, and we are not sending coded messages to the quantum realm.
Unfortunately, your belief seems to be that coded messages exist in the quantum realm: this seems to be the only possible reason that you would bring up Shannon. Do you or don’t you believe that coded messages exist in the quantum realm (yes or no)?
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 6, 2019 @ 01:19 GMT
Yes - of course! That is what the word "quantum" means! That is what I have been trying, without success, to get you to understand. Here is the original, experimental proof, from the 1920s
The observed result, (5), has nothing to do with what any humans are doing. The interaction between each individual atom (2) as it passes through the magnetic field (3) results in one of only two,...
view entire post
Yes - of course! That is what the word "quantum" means! That is what I have been trying, without success, to get you to understand.
Here is the original, experimental proof, from the 1920sThe observed result, (5), has nothing to do with what any humans are doing. The interaction between each individual atom (2) as it passes through the magnetic field (3) results in one of only two, distinct outcomes. Each individual atom is either deflected "up" or deflected "down". There is never any in between. It is either "spin up" or "spin down", "yes" or "no", "on" or "off", "heads" or "tails", "1" or "0", "Alice" or "Bob", "A" or "B", and it does not matter what you or any other human being is doing, or wishes to name those two distinct coded-states. Each atom, in effect, sends a 1-bit command to the magnet: "deflect me up" or "deflect me down". Codes do not get any simpler than that: a one-bit "command" from one inanimate object (an atom) to another inanimate object (a magnet), that is perfectly "executed", each and every time the experiment is conducted.
Here is a quote from my old Quantum Mechanics text book, regarding what happens when atoms that were just deflected by one magnetic field, are sent through a second, identical magnetic field: "we will find that every particle in the upper beam has spin up, and every particle in the lower beam has spin down." In other words, if an atom ever gave the command "deflect me up", it will repeat that identical command every time it is sent through the same type of magnet, and if it gave the command "deflect me down", it will repeat that command. And every "command" will be perfectly executed.
The 1920 physicists that first observed this, could hardly believe what was happening, just like you cannot believe it is happening. But it does happen. The quantum realm
behaves just as if elementary (very small information content) coded commands are being sent between inanimate objects!
But saying commands are being perfectly executed, is not the same as saying the "commands" are being perfectly "understood"! And that is the point of my paper; when commands are systematically misdetected (a systematic bit error), prior to the perfect execution of the erroneously detected command, then Bell tests are being entirely misinterpreted.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 6, 2019 @ 22:12 GMT
Rob,
Zeroes and ones are a code used by physicists to represent orthogonal elements in quantum outcomes, outcomes that have a quantum probability of occurring. Human mathematical analysis and experiment has shown that what is represented by these zeros and ones can be used by human beings to represent something similar to the binary digits that are represented by electrical voltages in computers. The actual quantum outcomes are not representable by zeroes and ones: it is only special mathematically analysed aspects of outcomes that are representable as zeroes and ones. However, all quantum outcomes only have a quantum probability of occurring.
The zeroes and ones are not a code from the point of view of the micro-world: nothing in the micro-world has a brain.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 6, 2019 @ 23:31 GMT
"it is only special mathematically analysed aspects of outcomes that are representable as zeroes and ones"
One does not need to perform any math at all, specialized or not, in order to draw a "1" next to the "up" cluster of points seen in the experimental outcomes, and a "0" next to the "down" cluster.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 02:44 GMT
Lorraine, it may be helpful to break down the process of sending and receiving coded messages. There is the choice of way of transmitting the message. For example Morse code could be sent using a telegraph key, the flashing of a torch beam, the clapping of hands etc. The method of transmission is the actualizing in material reality of the abstract code.The way it is transmitted does not alter the code, and although the code is not self aware it still is what it is. To be deciphered the signal, of whatever kind, must be received. It can then be processed into knowledge of the message by comparison with prior learning of the cipher or by comparison with a copy of the cipher. That may involve intermediate representation such as by ink on paper. From knowledge of person A to knowledge of recipient B there is materially real transmission.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 03:05 GMT
Robert, I don't think the electrons passing through a Stern gerlach apparatus are sending a message to the magnets. Rather the election (and its field) and magnetic field interact causing re-alignment of the electron if needs be. Same test again it is already aligned giving same outcome. It seems more like a response to the environment. Perhaps comparable to 'light' being affected by the varying density of air in a convection current. Which affects the appearance of the observation product generated when that 'light' is received by an observer. The 'light' has not told the convection current how to affect it.The passage of the electron through the apparatus can be thought of as a signal but traveling from source to screen or a collection apparatus
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 15:38 GMT
"I don't think the electrons passing through a Stern gerlach apparatus are sending a message to the magnets."
Think again. The electrons, in and of themselves,
are the message, just like coins
are money: what either of those things "represent" to a human, such as what can be bought with the coins, when you "deflect" them out of your pocket, and into someone else's pocket, is...
view entire post
"I don't think the electrons passing through a Stern gerlach apparatus are sending a message to the magnets."
Think again. The electrons, in and of themselves,
are the message, just like coins
are money: what either of those things "represent" to a human, such as what can be bought with the coins, when you "deflect" them out of your pocket, and into someone else's pocket, is completely irrelevant to the fact that if the coins do not exist, then nothing will
ever be caused to happen, that requires the existence of a coin (or electron) to cause it to happen. Coins and electrons
cause effects to happen. The coin and electrons
are the cause, and the subsequent behavior of the entities interacting with those causal agents, are the effects. "Symbolic representations" are merely a
description of that situation. But they are not
usually the situation itself. But, it is perfectly possible that they are; for something to "symbolically represent" nothing other than itself. That is what is happening in the "quantum realm".
"message" = "causal agent". Where there is no message, there is no cause, so there can be no effect. The fact that not all entities
respond in the same manner, to any given message, simply means that some entities "get" the message (know how to "correctly" respond) and some don't. The fact that humans "don't get" the messages being exchanged between non-human entities, just means humans "don't get it." It does not mean that such messages don't exist.
When you drop coins into an old vending machine, they are literally "deflected" along different paths, by a mechanical apparatus, that is being caused to behave differently towards coins of different denominations - and the cause is nothing other than the mere presence of the coins themselves - just like particles with different spin-states cause the Stern-Gerlach "machine" to deflect them along different paths.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 19:09 GMT
You seem to be missing the point of quantum phase superposition. A spin up atom has a cause and a spin down atom has a cause...however, because each atom is in quantum superposition of spin up and spin down before the apparatus, it is not possible to know the spin of the atom before the measurement.
Classically, each atom exists as either spin up or spin down before the magnet just as a classical coin will exist with difference and be the classical cause before it is deflected by the apparatus.
Each atom did not exist in a particular spin state before the apparatus and so none of the atoms carries any information. Different denominations of coins do carry information even before a machine deflects them. Once an atom has spin up, that spin up state is still a superposition of orthogonal spin states with quantum phase and so is not classical at all.
An orthogonal apparatus will also produce spin right and spin left atoms from just the spin up atoms...and the spin right atoms will once again have spin up and spin down atoms...there is no classical cause for quantum phase superposition...
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 21:09 GMT
Rob,
Re “One does not need to perform any math at all, specialized or not, in order to draw a "1" next to the "up" cluster of points seen in the experimental outcomes, and a "0" next to the "down" cluster”:
Only human beings, not the micro-world, are capable of doing that! Only human beings are capable of doing experiments; and only human beings are capable of representing a cluster of points as “up” or “down”, and re-representing “up” as 1, and “down” as 0 .
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 21:22 GMT
"You seem to be missing the point of quantum phase superposition."
Detectors like matched filters, are
only sensitive to energy in specific states. They are
completely insensitive (cannot detect) phase. Superpositions only exist as intermediate terms, useful for computing the final energy state (the sum of the squares of the real and imaginary parts). That
is the point.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 21:35 GMT
"Only human beings, not the micro-world, are capable of doing that!"
So what!
Only the micro-world, not your symbols, cause the real, physical particles to be deflected up or down. Up and down are not just "symbols"; they are real physical trajectories, that humans, like yourself, may or may not label with the words "up" or "down". The trajectories and behaviors exist, even when no human ever existed, to apply those labels to them. Your thoughts, your opinions, your very existence is completely irrelevant to the fact that the up and down trajectories exist, and get created every time some property of atoms
cause magnets to deflect them.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 21:50 GMT
Hi Robert, If it is like the coin sorting analogy, that requires the electrons to carry spin states for each of the possible orientations of apparatus. The electron does not know what environment it will encounter. Unless it is already in a spin up or down relative to the orientation of the apparatus it must change its orientation. That it can change between entry and exit of the machine overcomes the problem of not being able to carry all the spin states that might be needed. Same orientation of test repeated, there is no need for the electron to change its orientation to get the same spin outcome. When a different orientation of apparatus is used the electron must change to get spin up or down for the new orientation. Having changed, the old spin state is lost an there is no lasting effect of it having been.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 22:40 GMT
Rob,
Interactions are occurring in the micro-world, but messages are not being sent.
Messages are coded/symbolic representations of information, using symbols like words or binary digits.
In the micro-world, interactions occur, but the interactions do not involve
coded information.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 7, 2019 @ 22:53 GMT
Georgina,
Re "it may be helpful to...":
I'm not quite sure why you think I need help. What exactly is the issue regarding coding, messaging and signalling that you think you can help me with?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 8, 2019 @ 00:54 GMT
Lorraine I think it may be helpful in general not specifically just for you. There are lots of different things going on when a 'coded message' is sent and received and processed into something known. The way transmission happens, the encoding of the 'message', what happens en route during transmission, how the signal is received, how the message is deciphered, the product of processing and association with other knowledge or available information to give understanding/ comprehension. The different parts of the process are all different. My interest is in its similarity to ordinary sensory perception from transmitted sensory stimuli. It involves receiving input from external material reality and generating an internal observation product (different from the source), that is knowable.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 8, 2019 @ 00:56 GMT
Let me try, one last time, to get through to you.
Forget about physics.
Bell's theorem, is a theorem - in pure math. A theorem is not a theory. A theory describes some behavior of the physical world. A theorem does not. A theorem only describes the behavior of symbolic logic; logical conclusions are shown to necessarily follow, from a set of premises. Bell's theorem claims that no deterministic, symbolic logic, can possibly behave in the manner demonstrated by the logic in my paper. So how was the impossible made possible? It has nothing to do with physics. And neither does Bell's theorem! Bell's theorem is not experimenting with, or manipulating physical objects. It is only manipulating symbolic representations of physical objects. And Bell employed a symbolic representation of an "entangled pair", that does not properly "represent" real, physical entangled pairs.
The entire reason that I targeted Bell's theorem, is precisely because it is a theorem, not a theory; and what is supposed to have been proven via symbolic logic, can be falsified with symbolic logic. No physics is required.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 8, 2019 @ 20:47 GMT
Rob,
When people write or speak, information is conveyed to others when the other people analyse patterns in the light or sound waves. Physics represents light and sound with variables and numbers: any patterns exist within the numbers; any code exists within the pattern of the numbers. (And this is what the technology behind your phone does when you ask it a spoken question: the technology analyses patterns in the sound waves.)
Physics represents the basic-level information in the universe with variables (that only exist within the context of law of nature relationships) and numbers: both the variables and numbers have a context i.e. both the variables and numbers only exist in the context of other variables and numbers. It is not possible for a code to exist and underlie this basic-level information because codes can only ever exist in a context. E.g. a YES/NO answer can’t exist without the question also existing: YES/NO answers only exist within the context of questions also existing.
So no theory about the nature of the world can be based on an assumption that codes underlie the basic-level reality that physics represents with variables and numbers.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 9, 2019 @ 04:58 GMT
Quantum phase makes all of this moot...and the Stern-Gerlach device is an example of measuring quantum phase. In fact, there are many ways that signal engineers measure phase and they are very, very clever at it...
report post as inappropriate
RSS feed | RSS help
LISTEN: