Dear Brian,

We start from opposite axioms: I claim that we cannot go outside of the physical universe for physics--all else is equivalent to an appeal to God (which is legitimate, but not physics). By contradicting this "prime axiom", that "There is nothing outside the physical universe", the floodgates are open to let anything convenient through, no matter how unlikely or even absurd. ...

view entire post

Dear Brian,

We start from opposite axioms: I claim that we cannot go outside of the physical universe for physics--all else is equivalent to an appeal to God (which is legitimate, but not physics). By contradicting this "prime axiom", that "There is nothing outside the physical universe", the floodgates are open to let anything convenient through, no matter how unlikely or even absurd. You deny objective reality. What is surprising is what a convincing argument you make. But I believe a number of your arguments are either wrong or misleading.

You begin, as many do, by denying local realism. That is the current trend, probably because it's 'sexy'. But one of the world's foremost experts, Anton Zeilinger, has written a book, Dance of the Photons, in which his key arguments are spelled out in appendix A, where he substitutes, for quantum "properties" human properties, such as eye color, hair color, and height. He then proceeds to derive Bell's inequality and to claim that actual measurement results imply that the properties "do not exist until measured".

Now changing the 'name' of the properties has absolutely no effect upon the logic of Bell's inequality, so either his logic is correct or it is not.

And here is the catch. The entire logic is based upon the assumption that the properties do not change en route to being measured! If this assumption is wrong, then the logic of Bell's inequality is wrong, and the drastic step of denying local realism is simply not justified.

That is, when he begins with a "known" set of properties, and derives, based upon this set, Bell's inequality, and finds that measurements violate this inequality, then he concludes that the properties do not exist until the measurement is made.

In Zeilinger's "user friendly" example, all that is necessary to refute this logic is to assert that one or more of the properties changed en route to the measurement. For example, one 'particle' dyes his hair, en route, thereby changing the measurement and violating Bell's inequality.

Now the true believers will object, no, no, no -- you cannot equate 'hair color' with quantum properties, but they are wrong. Bell's inequality does not depend on specific properties. All that is necessary to refute the argument is that properties change en route between the source and the detection.

And as long as *both* entangled particles are treated exactly the same en route, the inequality is not violated, and there is no reason to question local realism. And this is what we find. Only when the pair are interfered with in different ways en route is the inequality violated.

Therefore, one has to ask whether properties can change en route subject to differing physical interactions. And the answer is not available, because there is no rigorous analysis of photons, say in polarizing beam splitters. There is not even agreement on the (basically undefined) 'cut' or 'schnitt' that divides the quantum system being measured from the classical measuring 'apparatus'.

So the answer does not exist -- at this point only 'user preference' is involved. Some physicists, for reasons that I won't speculate on, are willing to give up local realism based on flimsy assumptions. I find that rather drastic, to put it mildly.

I'll try to keep my future comments down, but since this seems to be the basis of all your arguments, and I don't think any other essay yet depends entirely on rejecting local realism, I thought this would be the place to try to nail down this issue.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Brian,

Starting from your conclusions:

“Indeed, a world of objects that inherently exist is a concept flawed at its foundation. If a photon is

a mini-object with hidden parts, they need still finer parts, and so on. If every object contains smaller

objects, how can it ever end? That physical objects always arise from other physical objects is like...

view entire post

Dear Brian,

Starting from your conclusions:

“Indeed, a world of objects that inherently exist is a concept flawed at its foundation. If a photon is

a mini-object with hidden parts, they need still finer parts, and so on. If every object contains smaller

objects, how can it ever end? That physical objects always arise from other physical objects is like the

earth being a disc on the back of a giant turtle. Just as that turtle would need another turtle to stand

upon, ad infinitum, so every object would need sub-objects to comprise it. A universe can no more be

“objects all the way down” than it can be “turtles all the way down”. The existential buck has to stop

somewhere, and in this model, processing is it.” :

What if the argument goes in circle assuming that beyond the quantum (smallest) quantity is the infinity (biggest)?

“By the logic of quantum theory, between our "real" observations is a quantum unreality of which

the Copenhagen doctrine says we must not speak. Yet as entities are in-between interactions more than

in them, the world exists mostly in uncollapsed quantum states. So by what logic are its brief moments

of collapse "real"? Surely reality is what exists most of the time?” :

An entity (SuE) is in a collapsed quantum state (pure real state) just for a moment the “time moment” that it is on time line (X=Y=Z); the time of perception (measurement). The same is true for the “time moment” when it is in its pure virtual state ΦX=ΦY=ΦZ . Hence, any entity is in its clear real or virtual state just for a “time moment” when it (the entity) is on its time line (extension of R or Φ, see Fig. 5 and 6 for 2D and Fig. 8 for 3D). At all other (infinity) time the entity is in a sum of stochastic states with continuously varying probabilities between the previous and the following collapsed quantum states. So reality is neither real neither virtual.

“Or if quantum waves predict and cause physical reality, isn’t making a cause "unreal" and its

effect "real" backwards logic, like saying the sun circles the earth? If quantum states create physical

states, by what logic are they unreal? Surely reality is that which causes, not that which is caused49?” :

Reality is that which causes ONLY IF interaction is independent from what is caused. If this is not the case (interaction depends on the result through holographic virtual interconnection) then reality is that which causes PLUS that which is caused.

“… against evidence that quantum states are non-physical by nature and quantum collapse is non-physical by origin.” :

Quantum states are “non-physical” by physical reality and quantum collapse is “non-physical” by virtual reality (both realities consist nature).

“It is to this place, that others avoid, the VR conjecture takes us, not to shock or amuse, but to

progress. We suppose ourselves in the rational sunlight of physical reality, standing before a dark cave

of quantum paradox, but in this model, as in Plato’s cave analogy, it is the other way around.” :

It is not like Plato’s cave.

It is like we see with one eye to our front and the other eye to our back. The front eye sees the real reality and the back one sees the virtual reality. We can not perceive both realities at once although they are both existing in the present universe. We have the appropriate glass(es) for the front eye and we are search for the glass(es) for the back one.

Best regards,

narsep

view post as summary

Dear Brian,

In response to Tom you said: "Why a world should have such unseen and unusable dimensions is unclear", then you claimed a virtual world needs only one extra dimension; presumably on the basis of 'usefulness'. And your remark about complex number theory's "imaginary" dimension is misleading---complex numbers are simply 2D representations, as of course you know.

I don't...

view entire post

Dear Brian,

In response to Tom you said: "Why a world should have such unseen and unusable dimensions is unclear", then you claimed a virtual world needs only one extra dimension; presumably on the basis of 'usefulness'. And your remark about complex number theory's "imaginary" dimension is misleading---complex numbers are simply 2D representations, as of course you know.

I don't think I agree with you (or my hero, Feynman) that "a real field is a mathematical function we use to avoid the idea of action at a distance". Real fields appear to distribute energy over space. I don't believe that mathematics (the 'map') can accomplish this, only reality (the 'territory') can do this.

Then you say you like fields, but they cannot be perceived directly. Forgive me for quoting my earlier fqxi essay, but I can't discuss direct perception any better than I did: (http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561)

.

"Upon what must a fundamental theory of physics be based? ...it should be formulated in terms of human reality, not abstract formulations. Either it is based on directly and immediately sensed reality or it is based on some abstraction that is claimed to represent reality. Current theories are based on physics abstractions such as:

Gravity, String theories, Electromagnetics, Quantum field theories, Strong and weak forces, Dark matter and energy, Extra dimensions, Extra universes, Consciousness

Of these, only two, gravity and consciousness, are immediately sensible and directly experienced by humans. I am directly aware of gravity and I am directly aware that I am conscious. I have no direct, immediate, awareness of any other physics on the list (with the exception of a small range of electromagnetic radiation). All other entities, if they exist, are sensed through the medium of some measurement apparatus (as complex as the Large Hadron Collider or as simple as iron filings in a magnetic field)-yet none is directly sensed. Even muscular detection of a magnetic field is possible only through the medium of a held magnet. Gravity and consciousness are directly sensible, requiring no external apparatus, and hence are deemed suitable for the basis of a physical theory that does not depend upon belief in either equipment or logical argument. We *know* these two entities exist. All else should depend on these."

.

Brian, you claim the VR model is a testable theory because "what processing creates it can be derived by reverse engineering." I'm older than you and my first logic design class (text: "The Logical Design of Digital Computers" by Montgomery Phister, 1958) argued that economics dictated a certain problem be solved by mechanical relay logic. I've designed with vacuum tubes, transistors, TTL-MSI, PALs, microprocessors, minicomputers and FPGA hardware, and written in Fortran, BASIC, PL-1, VisiCalc, JAVA, 8080, 8051, and 80386 assembly code, and many others, and I've designed multi-tasking incrementally compiling operating systems, ISDN connections to the internet, and much more, and I very sincerely doubt that reverse engineering the "processing output" to a meaningful, that is, architectural, level, is possible. My not so humble, but very knowledgeable, opinion. And if you can't reach the architectual level, then the VR model is more or less indistinguishable from God.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (12 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Brian,

You say: if the mind creates the body as in a dream, why can't I dream the body I want?

The mind do not create the body but it does create an image of the body. I propose a simple answer given by Hoffman in his Interface Theory of Perception:

The shape of an icon doesn't reconstruct the true shape of the file; the position of an icon doesn't reconstruct the true...

view entire post

Dear Brian,

You say: if the mind creates the body as in a dream, why can't I dream the body I want?

The mind do not create the body but it does create an image of the body. I propose a simple answer given by Hoffman in his Interface Theory of Perception:

The shape of an icon doesn't reconstruct the true shape of the file; the position of an icon doesn't reconstruct the true position of the file in the computer.

I don't take the icon literally, as though it resembles the real file. But I do take it seriously. My actions on the icon have repercussions for the file.

When a file icon is dragged to the trash and disappears from the screen, is the file itself destroyed, or is it still intact and just inaccessible to the user interface?

We shall distinguish the reality and H, Sapiens’ perception of the reality. It means that our imagination is an interface that evolved to perceive some aspects of reality and it does not mean that our imagination can create the reality.

If you are not satisfied, try “The Interface Theory of Perception” by Hoffman .

Below I try to address your ten reasons using my speculative spacetime deformations concept (some details you can find in my essay). My comments begin with --.

Ten reasons to suspect that the physical world is a simulation

1. The big bang. That our universe arose from “nothing” in an initial time zero event makes no sense for an objective reality, but every virtual reality boots up from nothing in itself. -- Assuming the Universe is a wavepacket travelling through the conformally flat spacetime (“nothing”) it is possible and it means there is no initial zero time.

2. The speed of light. An objective reality has no reason for a maximum speed, but every simulation screen has a maximum refresh rate that limits local transfers. -- Assuming the spacetime is an elastic medium the speed of light would be limited due to the bulk modulus of the spacetime representing the possibility of the spacetime deformation.

3. Planck limits. An objective space has no reason to be discrete, as our world seems to be at the Planck level, but a virtual space must be so. -- The reason can be the evolution process - a special case of more general law of survival of the stable.

4. Non-locality. Effects that instantly affect entities anywhere in the universe, like entanglement and quantum collapse, are impossible in an objective reality, but a program can alter pixels anywhere on a screen, even on one as big as our universe. -- The concept of deformed spacetime assumes that the entities in question have never been spatially separated as they have been entangled since the creation moment as two halves of an apple taken away (they are travellig waves).

5. Malleable space-time. Mass and movement should not alter time or space in an objective reality, but a massive body could use up local processing to dilate time and curve space. -- see my comment to the point 2.

6. Randomness. If every physical event is predicted by others, a random quantum event is an impossible "uncaused cause", but a processor creating a virtual world can be its cause. -- Let us assume that the universe is a dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality.

7. Empty space is not empty. In an objective reality empty space is "nothing at all", but space as null processing can spawn the virtual particles of the Casimir effect. -- An absolute vacuum in the meaning of not deformed spacetime does not exist because all spacetime deformations have non limited range. The vacuum differs from the matter only with spacetime density gradient and shape.

8. Superposition. Objective entities cannot spin in two directions at once as quantum entities do, but a program can divide itself to do this. -- Do they really behave like that acc. to QM?

9. Equivalence. That every electron in our world is exactly like every other is untenable for an objective world, but simulations typically use entity templates. -- see my comment to the point 3.

10. Quantum tunnelling. An electron "tunnelling" through an impenetrable field barrier, like a coin popping out of a perfectly sealed glass bottle, is impossible if objects continuously exist, but not if they are discrete event frames. -- The size, gradient and shape of spacetime deformations travelling as a wave can naturally do that.

Best regards,

Jace

view post as summary

This will help clarify what constitutes Reality (it's only 2 pages, or you could go to the Facebook page referred to):

Reality

Absolute

As it is not possible to know anything beyond the confines of our existence, it has to be assumed that our understanding of it involves presuppositions and limitations. There is always the possibility of other, unattainable, information. ...

view entire post

This will help clarify what constitutes Reality (it's only 2 pages, or you could go to the Facebook page referred to):

Reality

Absolute

As it is not possible to know anything beyond the confines of our existence, it has to be assumed that our understanding of it involves presuppositions and limitations. There is always the possibility of other, unattainable, information. Simply, if ‘A’, there is always the possibility of ‘not-A’. This does not imply that there is an existence other than our own, only that there is always the possibility thereof.

So what can be known, irrespective of when or how, may never be absolute. Our knowledge can only ever be regarded as having validity based on an intrinsic perspective. Put the other way around, from an alternative point of reference (which, even if it existed could never be experienced by us) our understanding may be shown to be incorrect.

In delineating what cannot be known, and the boundaries within which we function, this existential conundrum shows how an objective analysis of reality can be formulated (ie it proves, and defines, a specified closed system). As the possible state of ‘not-existence’ is unknowable, trying to define it, or view reality from that perspective (ie one supposedly without pre-conditions, variously referred to as the ‘truth’, ‘actual’, ‘real’, etc) is pointless scientifically.

For the scientific process then, the task is to investigate reality as experienced by us, and not conjecture about the unknowable.

Reality

Evidence indicates that all individuals have the same experience of certain entities under the same circumstances. Even in other situations, similarities occur. This implies that ‘something’ (which could be labelled (awkwardly) real reality) exists independently of individual consciousness, and it is then experienced, not created by experience. How this (ie all individuals having a similar experience) ultimately occurs is a metaphysical question, as it addresses the concept of what is the ‘true’ nature of experience, and is therefore irrelevant to an objective analysis.

First there is the boundary of existence, then there is one that is determined by individual consciousness. So, the reality that can be identified in these individual experiences can only ever be an accurate, but experiential representation, of what actually exists within the confines of our existence. In other words, while procedures can be followed that logically ensure that the inferred reality is correct, that can never ultimately be proven, given the limitation of consciousness.

Simply, ‘what might really be’ is unknowable. Experiencing ‘what is’ results in ‘what appears to be’ (an experience), a first order representation of ‘what is’. Then that can be refined to ‘what really appears to be’. The latter is best referred to as reality, although it is actually an approximation thereof, since otherwise the narrative becomes over complicated and potentially confusing. And anyway, nothing more accurate is achievable, that is, within the boundaries of our consciousness, ‘what really appears to be’ constitutes ‘what is’. Having necessarily established the correct status of what will be referred to as reality, progress can then be effected in determining how to identify it.

Another way of expressing this would be a less immediately elegant expression of a well know phrase, which would be: ‘I know I know, I know you know, you know I know, so we all know we know, but that is all we know, because we do not really know what we know’.

Extrapolating reality from individual experiences

Entities whose manifestation has a form independent of the process of experience comprise reality (ie existent entities). They transcend our experience of them since they exist separately, unlike non-existent entities which only appear to transcend our experience in that they refer to attributes beyond our existence. However, there are several factors involved in perception which interfere with the resulting representation of them.

These can be resolved with the application of reverse engineering to the experiential process, and/or logic, whilst technology can be used to enhance the sensory/thought process. The fundamental aim being to identify what has been, or what could have been, directly (or indirectly) perceived when any identifiable interference resulting from the process of experience is eradicated.

Although reality comprises existent entities, those that are not experienceable directly, for technical reasons, must also be included. Otherwise that knowledge would be lost. Therefore, if an entity can be identified on the basis of other (preferably direct) experiences and verifiable reasoning, then the resulting inferred entity can be deemed to exist, albeit hypothetically (ie it could be labelled as an inferred existent entity, as opposed to a realised existent entity).

So, the criteria for existence is that either entities can be experienced directly, or their existence can be determined logically from other validated experiences. The critical point being whether the inability to achieve an experience is a function of the process, or because the entity alluded to has no form of experienceable existence whatsoever.

Conclusion

Within the inescapable constraints of our existence, our experience of reality does not create it, though it is the only function through which it is manifested. The process of experience interferes with the resulting representation of reality, but those effects can be identified and eradicated in order to discern what actually instigated the experience.

Reality does not exist a priori, in the sense that an experience causes one option amongst many to be realised, and the other ‘possibilities’ may or may not continue to exist. It exists a priori in that it is independent of the sensory/thought process whereby it is realised.

© Paul Reed

April 2011

Extracted from Theory of Reality and Time posted on Re Ality (Facebook, look for the boy with his cat)

Defintion of Key Concepts

Not Real Reality

That which possibly exists, but is not experienceable

Real Reality

That which is experienceable by any living organism.

Entity

Anything which is experienceable by any living organism (ie Real Reality).

[NB: In the sense that everything is undergoing a continuous process of change, then every discrete stage of every sequence of change represents a different entity, because the previous state (ie entity) no longer exists. As this is too cumbersome to account for grammatically in a narrative description, then labels such as ‘attribute’, ‘characteristic’, etc, are used to refer to changes when the entity is not ‘fundamentally’ changed. This is the elementary unit of Real Reality].

Reality

That which is deemed to exist once any interference in an experience of Real Reality has been eradicated.

Process of experience

The entire process whereby any entity is detected by any living organism.

Experience

The representation of an entity resulting from a process of experience effected by any living individual organism.

Sight based experience

A representation of any entity which is enabled by that part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum which is able to convey information that is realisable as a direct optical image of that entity.

Interference

Any effect which alters the representation of Real Reality during the process of experience.

Change

The process whereby any entity becomes another entity.

view post as summary

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies