I continue reading Langan's 52-pages long "book": "Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics (QMM)".
In September 2022 on substack.com forum Langan wrote:
"Some readers may have heard of the television show “The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch”. Skinwalker Ranch, located in Utah, is one of the world’s premier hotspots for UFO sightings, paranormal mysteries, and “High Strangeness”. "
and then he continued with
"I'm usually quite sympathetic to reports of paranormal phenomena. In fact, my own paranormal experiences were part of what drove me to construct a sophisticated "big picture" theory able to accommodate explanations. The world is swimming in such phenomena, but we've been conditioned not to see or hear them...or rather, to see and hear only the ones intended by their sources, whatever those may be. Unfortunately, some people have muddied the waters by counterfeiting them."
But in his QMM, he is concentrating on quantum mechanics claiming that QM quite often called for explaining consciousness and its problems, has problems with Reality itself:
"QM merely yields statistical predictions or their outcomes. QM does not include definitions or attributions of being, existence, or reality."
Yet there is a problem with this statement, as Langan is not precise about which QM he is talking about? There are many versions. Some of these versions, the most popular ones, indeed have the status described by Langan above. But if Langan would be paying attention left and right and study the subject deeply, not just reading mainstream papers, he would certainly notice that there are versions of quantum mechanics that were created exactly to overcome these problems. One example is EEQT. In EEQT we do not have problems with reality, at least no more than we have with classical mechanics that Langan is leaving untouched with his criticism.
True, in EEQT as well we predict only statistical averages of observables. We can also simulate individual processes of events, but such simulations are of no practical use, since each particular sequence of events is not reproducible - as in real life.
A similar objection concerns those who state that it is impossible to reconcile quantum theory and general relativity, because "these belong to different categories". It depends on which quantum mechanics one has in mind. In EEQT version there is one common category, namely the category of coupled classico-quantal systems (a precise definition of which is yet to be done).
While it is true that EEQT is incomplete, and while it is true that it is almost unknown by mainstream physicists, it shows that the above mentioned objections to QM miss the point, and miss it badly.
P.S. Mathematically EEQT formalism is within the category of Semigroups of Positive Maps in Banach *-algebras (cf. Banach algebra with involution - somewhat more general than C*-algebra) and induced Piecewise Deterministic Stochastic Processes. All classical mechanics and field theory (in particular General Relativity) fits into this category if we restrict ourselves to the subcategory of Abelian algebras. Without this restriction, for general algebras, we are dealing with classico-quantal systems, the classical part being represented by the center of the algebra. In the future this category will need to be extended so that the very *-algebra structure becomes an object (dynamical variable).
Quoting from "Towards the theory of matter, geometry and information":
"... Continuing the analogy : in the same way as a gravitational field curves space-time [f6], the information field may curve the state space. May change the geometry of the space of quantum states. May enable the flow of information and of energy through new channels. Now quantum matter gets a worthy partner, just as the gravitational field was a worthy partner to classical matter. The same way as gravitational field is local[f7] in space-time, the information field is local in Hilbert space where " near" means " similar". The geometry of the information field must be, as we have said, a nonlinear geometry. Only in this way can we explain the stability of structures, such as the structure of life. With the phenomenon of life we can in this way, associate a topological invariant (a kind of a vortex) in the nonlinear field of information."
P.S.2.General Relativity will need to replaced by something better. Indication about how that should be done (pre-metric formulation by Hehl and co-authors) can be found in the paper by Wei-Tuo Ni "Spacetime structure and asymmetric metric from the premetric formulation of electromagnetism", where, by the way, one of my own papers is being quoted.
P.S.3 It is also interesting how much Langan's statements are close to those contained in some of Laura's writings! Did he secretly read The Wave and High Strangeness? Or it is just an accidental coincidence?
P.S. 4. From another discussion group:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:48 PM Kineman-SBOC wrote:
This is an update on data from JWST recently released showing candidate galaxies in large number as early as 250my after the supposed big bang. This counts as a revolutionary discovery because theory precluded finding fully formed galaxies that early. Here’s a blurb and a picture:
Paul Werbos16:19 (1h ago)do scientific-basis-of-consciousness, Biological, natureOn Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:48 PM Kineman-SBOC wrote:
This is an update on data from JWST recently released showing candidate galaxies in large number as early as 250my after the supposed big bang. This counts as a revolutionary discovery because theory precluded finding fully formed galaxies that early. Here’s a blurb and a picture:An image of deep space showing hundreds of galaxies against the black void. Galaxies are red, yellow, white and blue> In fact, astrophysicists are already finding the early universe might be a lot busier than they expected. Stars may have started forming at a much faster rate than some models have predicted. How did matter coalesce and start to form these galaxies early on? We don't know yet. But Webb is, seemingly, already rewriting what we thought we knew about the beginning of, well, everything.>> It's an astronomical revolution. So strap in. It's going to be one hell of a ride Implications? All the current theories of the early cosmos are wrong in some major way, including mine. While the kinematic model predicted we would find fully formed galaxies as far back as we look, it also predicted a general lensing effect and magnification of the view that is not showing up where it should have been. In fact, these fully formed galaxies are at a distance where some standard models predicted quantum soup and no model of galaxy formation allowed for such early development. Everyone is back to the drawing board. The universe is looking flatter and more infinite than anyone expected.
General Relativity and its cosmological models will have to be redone. Together with Quantum Theory.
P.S.5 A thought: consciousness/information is related to "indefinite metric" and to "the universe of negative probability events" (physics speaks about "ghost states", and for a good reason). That is why I insist on *-algebras rather than the subcategory of C*-algebras. I do not know yet how in details to fill in the blanks. Notice though that Clifford algebras may be considered as particular cases of C*-algebras.
P.S.6 And an interesting recent update:
Paul Werbos
„In EEQT version there is one common category, namely the category of coupled quantu and classical systems.”.
ReplyDeleteHow do you understand the category here? I ask because I want to understand it. You named this category „the category of coupled quantum and classical systems.”.
I am actually reading: „Classical and Quantum Intertwine”.
What are the objects in this category? Are they A_c and L(H_q)? So these are R-algebras, right? If so the tensor product turns the category of R-algebras into a symmetric monoidal category.
What are the morphisms here? A_c -> A_c \otimes L(H_q) and L(H_q) -> A_c \otimes L(H_q) ?
I don't know if it can be understood that way.
"P.S. Mathematically EEQT formalism is within the category of Semigroups of Positive Maps in Banach *-algebras and induced Piecewise Deterministic Stochastic Processes.".
ReplyDeletePositive maps are morphisms between Banach ∗
-algebras?
In this particular case, is this Banach *-algebra also a C*-algebra? In other words, does the identity ||x* x|| = ||x*|| ||x|| occur for every x in B, where B is a Banach algebra?
"in the same way as a gravitational field curves space-time [f6], the information field may curve the state space. May change the geometry of the space of quantum states. May enable the flow of information and of energy through new channels. Now quantum matter gets a worthy partner, just as the gravitational field was a worthy partner to classical matter.".
ReplyDeleteI like it very much.
Information and gravity... And some unearthly fascinating entity that connects them - time, of course, because what else would I write about.
For example, for a fly, time passes more slowly, due to the fact that between the two phenomena it receives more information. A fly sees a person as if he is moving in slow motion, there have been studies on this.
And what happens in the general theory of relativity in the case of a strong gravitational field? A person who is close to a black hole (I like this example) sees other people as aging faster (these people are farther away from the black hole).
Information and gravity affect the perception of time. But now there are still questions about categories. I'm having a terrible time getting a mathematical grasp on what I'm actually talking about, but what you wrote about information and gravitational field is very close. So much for not having a mathematical description.
I feel that this category theory is really something very important and this approach cannot be ignored. So far, I still don't see the connection between EEQT and GR. I don't see the transition.
No one is able to give me answers to several questions. Neither physicists nor mathematicians. Specifically, they are not able to strictly comment on the categories in GR and QM. I am frankly heartbroken by this at the moment. I think this is a very important issue. And no one is addressing it?!
„P.S.5 A thought: consciousness/information is related to "indefinite metric" and to "the universe of negative probability events" (physics speaks about "ghost states", and for a good reason). That is why I insist on *-algebras rather than the subcategory of C*-algebras. I do not know yet how in details to fill in the blanks. Notice though that Clifford algebras may be considered as particular cases of C*-algebras.”.
ReplyDeleteI notet that Clifford algebras may be considered as particular cases of C*-algebras. I know about it. Here, however, no algebra will suffice, as there is a need to apply meta-mathematics to what you are writing about. This role is fulfilled for me by category theory. It is in a sense above logic.
In fact, I mainly read this book: https://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/4892369/wstep-do-teorii-kategorii-i-funkto-row
This discipline is just remarkably consistent with my way of thinking about physics. It is not consistent with my way of thinking about philosophy or mysticism, but for the moment it lends itself very well to some descriptions of physical phenomena for me.
You write here about consciousness, information, mass, energy, time. I know this is where the crux of the problem lies.
My problem at the moment is that I see structures in dreams, but I can't express them in a language that anyone can understand. Category theory enables me to do this in some cases. That is why I am so captivated by it.
Again, I will invoke Hegel, but I can't help thinking that some of his observations were remarkably unique. Hegel refers in his philosophy to the views of Plotinus, although surprisingly very rarely have historians of philosophy pointed this out.
According to Hegel’s philosophy the absolute spirit is constituted by the identity of self-knowledge and manifests itself in three forms: art, revealed religion and the conceptual form in philosophy.
Artistic creativity, religious creativity and philosophical creativity, are different expressions of one and the same absolute spirit. Beauty is the complete sameness of phenomenon and absolute.
For me, this division appears more or less as follows:
1. art (music, painting),
2. Conceptual form in philosophy (philosophy of physics, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, mathematics, physics, natural sciences),
3. revealed religion (all forms of revelation such as dreams, mystical experiences, e.g. during meditation, etc.).
For me, there is no clear division here. If we strive for the absolute, the manifestations show themselves in all forms. That's why we write art, for example, about how to apply category theory to physics.
I think time and consciousness can also manifest in the form of, for example, sound or image, I think they can hide in mathematics as well as art or mysticism. Time is everywhere. Time binds everything together.
For human beings and for human perception, time is something absolutely fundamental. All these things we are discussing: gravity, information, energy, mass should be able to be reduced to a single entity, which I would call time-consciousness.
I absolutely agree with what you wrote about information: „the information field may curve the state space.”.
I feel absolutely the same and it's what I dream about. But I have no mathematical argument for it. Do you have such an argument?
(The continuation of this commentary will follow).
For QM I think there are kind of two quite different things that perhaps would be handled in different categories. There is the evolution of points and there is the structure of a single point. The single point for even QM could look quite classical perhaps just doubling up some degrees of freedom for creation/annihilation or maybe Faddeev-Popov ghosts.
ReplyDeleteArk's EEQT is a generalized aka improved GRW. GRW is kind of the frictionless surface version of EEQT (as in high school when problems get simplified via assuming a frictionless surface). EEQT would have different math than the QM/classical model at a point because it is simulating evolution of many points. EEQT would be flexible enough to handle whatever the improved GR/classical QM at a point is.
Different relativity reference frames are kind of just playing with the coordinate axes of your current universe state. The semi-weird thing is that your current universe state would include all future and past times even though they aren't the ones you lived through or will live through since your state keeps changing.
That M4xCP2 spacetime is used by both Tony Smith and Matti Pitkanen. I very much could understand what Tony did but could never understand Matti at all. That M4xCP2 for Smith I think can be handled better in a manifold/metric/differential forms kind of way. Ark's conformal infinity papers mentioned Penrose and twistors.
@John G
ReplyDelete„That M4xCP2 spacetime is used by both Tony Smith and Matti Pitkanen.”.
Do you have links to these papers? If anyone has written about this before, I am keen to read it.
https://www.tony5m17h.net/Sets2Quarks6.html
DeleteAtiyah and Berndt say in their paper Projective Planes, Serveri Varieties, and Spheres,math.DG/0206135,the S1 x S7 considered as QP2 breaks down into two parts:
a CP2 acted on by an SU(3), which plays the role of Internal Symmetry Space after dimensional reduction in the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model; and
an S1 bundle over the S3 that is the complement S7 \ CP2, which plays the role of (1,3) RP1 x S3 Physical Minkowski Spacetime after dimensional reduction in the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model.
Matti Pitkanen has suggested that the global structure of 4-dimensional Spacetime and Internal Symmetry Space should be given by 8-dimensional SU(3), which decomposes into CP2 base and U(2) fibre, both of which are 4-dimensional, by SU(3) / U(2) = CP2.
Associative 4-dimensional Spacetime,with Minkowski signature, is topologically U(2) = SU(2)xU(1) = S3 xS1 (the Euclidean signature version of Spacetime is S4), which is consistent with the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8VoDou Physics model Minkowski Spacetime of RP1x S3.
Note that RP1 can be described as an orbifold.
Coassociative 4-dimensional Internal Symmetry Space is CP2.
https://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0150v4.pdf
8 components of 8-dim Kaluza-Klein M4xCP2 Spacetime Position times 4 components of 4-dim M4 Physical Spacetime Momentum... There are 64 - 32 = 32 of the 240 E8 in the half of E8 that did not go to the 600-cell. They correspond to 8 components of Position x 4 components of momentum in CP2...
Odd-Grade Parts of Cl(8) =
= 128 D8 half-spinors of one of iE8, jE8, kE8, eE8, ieE8, jeE8, keE8
8+56 grades-1,3 = Fermion Particle 8-Component Creation (AntiParticle Annihilation)
56+8 grades-5,7 = Fermion AntiParticle 8-Component Creation (Particle Annihilation)
Even-Grade Subalgebra of Cl(8) = 128 Mirror D8 half-spinors =
28 grade-2 = Gauge Boson Creation (16 for Gravity, 12 for Standard Model)
28 grade-6 = Gauge Boson Annihilation (16 for Gravity , 12 for Standard Model)
(each 28 = 24 Root Vectors + 4 of Cartan Subalgebra)
64 of grade-4 = 8-dim Position x Momentum
1+(3+3)+1 grades-0,4,8 = Primitive Idempotent:
(1+3) = Higgs Creation; (3+1) = Higgs Annihilation
Anonymous: Mathilde S.
Delete@John G
Thank you so much for your help. It's very nice for me and I didn't expect it! I will write more later. I am currently at work away from home.