Paying attention left and right

 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 Werbos

16:19 (1h ago)

do scientific-basis-of-consciousness, Biological, nature

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:

    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

17:27 (37 minut temu)

do Chantal, Mark', Scientific

MANY years ago, I saw articles by Arp in Ap.J., THE astrophysics journal, giving real data which hints at some of the alternate mechanisms. If amount of red shift varies a lot by TYPE of galaxy, it suggests an interaction of light with SOMETHING. That was long before we had photos of dark matter."

I love it that he mentions Arp!!! You may like to check "ORIGINE DE LA VIE Synthèses des théories existantes" Didier Salvignol 2010.

Zeno's Arrow: Langan, Bergson and mathematical physics

Christopher Langan - see Christopher M. Langan Interview

While reading Langan's "Quantum Metamechanics (QMM)" I stumbled upon these two paragraphs that have caused me to wonder (italics mine):

 Unfortunately,  there  are  problems  with  mathematical  quantization,  and  they  carry  over  into  physics.  This  is  easy  to  see  in  the  case  of  a  classical  manifold,  basically  a  space  consisting  of  zero-dimensional  (0D)  points  (real  numbers, elements of the real continuum R n ) and equipped with a metric that  is “locally Euclidean”, permitting a reasonable in-frame notion of distance and  locality. Immediately  we  detect  a  paradox: “of zero extent in a given space”  means “nonexistent in that space” – existence in a space means taking up space in it - and we cannot assert the existence of a space consisting of nonexistent points  that  take  up  no  space  at  all.  Even  if  we  could,  there  would  be  yet  another  problem associated with continuity, the adjacency paradox. An infinitesimal line  element or increment of linear motion must relocate a point-object from one  point to an adjacent point. But where points are zero-dimensional as continuity  demands,  adjacency  or  “being  in  mutual  contact”  effectively  identifies  them.  Adjacent points simply merge, and no relocation can occur. Linear motion is  out of the question.  

And then he goes on:

It follows that continuous motion requires finite termination or bounding of  the  interval  in  order  to  scale  and  sum  infinitesimal  increments,  produce  a  definite integral, and assign a length to the interval. But this still leaves nonzero  (albeit  sub-finite)  separations  between  each  pair  of  successive  points  along  a  path or physical trajectory, and an object must “jump out of” the manifold or  space in order to get from one point to the next.  Motion then becomes a series  of infinitesimal “quantum jumps” through hyperspace. This, of course, is not  what  mathematicians  and  physicists  typically  have  in  mind  when  they  talk  about  “the  continuous  (differentiable,  smooth)  motion  of  objects  or  waves  through  the  continuum”.  (We  ignore  for  now  the  various  workarounds  that  have  been  proposed  for  these  problems,  at  least  one  of  which  –  usually  the  Cauchy-Weierstrass  epsilon-delta  formalism  based  on  infinite  converging  sequences  –  is  generally  invoked  in  introductory  calculus  courses  in  order  to  deflect the “problem / paradox of infinitesimals”, which is never satisfactorily  resolved  with  respect  to  the  existence  or  nonexistence  of  0D  points  and  infinitesimal intervals between them.) 

I am extracting three main points from the above:

1) The question of how 0D points make a 1D line?

2) The problem of motion (related to Zeno's paradox)

3) The problem of "existence"

Source of illustration image: 

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%A9non_d%27%C3%89l%C3%A9e#/media/Fichier:Zeno_of_Elea_Tibaldi_or_Carducci_Escorial.jpg

But essentially, if I am not mistaken, Christopher Langan seems to point out problems that are quite similar to those that have made Zeno of Elea unhappy, and which are still debated today (though mostly dismissed).

Before addressing these three point the way I see them as a mathematical physicist, let me quote the view of a renowned philosopher Henri Bergson on the subject. But first let me quote from Wikipedia this piece:

(...) In 1922, Bergson's book Durée et simultanéité, a propos de la theorie d'Einstein (Duration and Simultaneity: Bergson and the Einsteinian Universe) was published.^[33] Earlier that year, Albert Einstein had come to the French Society of Philosophy and briefly replied to a short speech made by Bergson.^[34] It has been alleged that Bergson's knowledge of physics was insufficient and that the book did not follow up contemporary developments on physics. On the contrary, in "Einstein and the Crisis of Reason", a leading French philosopher, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, accused Einstein of failing to grasp Bergson's argument. This argument, Merleau-Ponty says, which concerns not the physics of special relativity but its philosophical foundations, addresses paradoxes caused by popular interpretations and misconceptions about the theory, including Einstein's own.

We see from the above that Bergson was probably deeply interested in the foundations of physics. In "Creative Evolution" (Routledge 2023) Bergson considers the problem of motion. He first notices that:

(...)  In order to  move forward with moving reality, we would have to place ourselves  back within that reality. Place yourself within that which is changing  and you will immediately grasp both change itself and the successive  states in which it could, at any moment, be immobilized. But you will  never  reconstitute  movement  from  these  successive  states,  seen  from  the outside as real immobile parts (and no longer as virtual immobile  parts). Depending on the situation, you might call them “qualities,”  “forms,” “positions,” or “intentions.”  You can multiply them as much  as you like, and thereby continuously bring two consecutive states closer  together. But when it comes to the intermediary movement between  the two states, you will always experience the same disappointment as  the child who tries to crush some smoke by pressing together his two  open hands.  The movement will slip away into the interval because  every  attempt  to  reconstitute  change  from  states  involves  the  absurd  proposition that movement is made up of immobile parts.

And then continues: 

Philosophy  noticed  this  absurdity  the  very  moment  it  opened  its  eyes. 86  Zeno of Elea’s arguments, though formulated with a very different  intention, in fact say nothing else. Shall we consider the flying arrow? According to Zeno, the arrow is  immobile at each instant, since it would only have the time to move—  that is, to occupy at least two successive positions— if it is granted at  least two instants. At any given moment, the arrow is thus at rest at a  given point. Immobile at each point along its path, the arrow is thus  immobile during the entire time that it moves. Yes, provided we assume the arrow can ever be at one point of its  path. Yes,  provided  the  arrow,  which  belongs  to  moving  reality  [le  mouvant], ever coincided with a position, which belongs to immobile  reality [l’immobilité]. But the arrow never is at any point of its path. The  most we can say is that the arrow could be at a certain point, in the sense  that it passes through that point and would be free to stop there. True,  if it had stopped there, it would have remained there, and at that point  we would no longer be dealing with a movement. The truth is that if  the arrow leaves point A in order to land at point B, then the movement  AB is, as a movement, just as simple and just as indecomposable as is  the tension in the bow that launches it. Just as the shrapnel, exploding  prior to reaching the ground, extends an indivisible danger across the zone of the explosion, so too the arrow that goes from A to B deploys,  in a single stroke, its indivisible mobility, although this time across a  certain extension of durée. Imagine an elastic band that you stretch from  A to B; can you divide up its extension? The flight of the arrow is this  extension itself: it is just as simple and, like it, indivisible. It is a single  and unique leap. You focus on a point C in the interval that is traversed,  and you say that at a certain moment the arrow was at C. But if it had  been there, this means it would have stopped there, and now you would  no longer have the flight from A to B, but rather two flights, one from  A to C,  the other from C to B, with an interval of rest in between. By definition, a single movement is an entire movement between two stopping  points: if there are intermediary stopping points, then it is no longer a  single movement. In essence, the illusion comes from the fact that the  movement, once completed, has deposited along its path an immobile trajectory along which we can count as many immobile parts as we like. From this we conclude that at each instant the movement, while being  accomplished, deposited beneath itself a position with which it coincided.  But we thereby fail to see that the trajectory is created in a single stroke,  even though it takes a certain amount of time, and that even though  we can divide at will the trajectory once it has been created, we could  not divide its creation, which is not a thing but an act in progress. To  assume that the moving object is at a given point of its path amounts  to making a cut with scissors at precisely that point, thereby cutting the  path in two and substituting two trajectories for the single trajectory  that we were first considering. It is to distinguish two successive acts  where, by definition, there is only one. In short, it is to transport into the  very flight of the arrow everything that might be said about the interval  that the arrow flies through; it is to accept, a priori, the absurdity that  movement coincides with the immobile.

Let me start with 1) The question of how 0D points make a 1D line?

The use of 0D suggests that the author talks about "dimensions". Usually we define the dimension within the category of topological spaces ( see for instance Lebesgue covering dimension). Points of any topological space have automatically dimension zero, whatever the dimension of the whole space is. In metric spaces we also have the concept of a fractal dimension (for instance Hausdorff dimension). There points have also dimension 0. So I do not see any problem here. But the author also mentions R^n. For instance, for n=1, the space of all real numbers. Real numbers are well defined using the standard axioms of set theories.(see e.g. here). With the usual topology the space of real numbers is 1-dimensional and its elements, by definition, are points - the real numbers. Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not understand the problem. Perhaps the problem is in undefined concept of "making". Do real numbers "make" the set of all real numbers? In a well defined sense they do "make": elements of any set "make" this set. But, perhaps, Langan has a different definition of "making"? That is not clear to me.

Let us move to 2) The problem of motion (related to Zeno's paradox)

Here we need to distinguish between a "mathematical point" and a "material point". Mathematical point is just a point, an element of some set, and the concept of "motion" does not apply, unless it is somehow defined in a specific framework. Material point is, on the other hand, a concept discussed within classical mechanics. Material points do move, and their motion is usually described using solutions of differential equations, once the forces are known. At each given instant of time a material point is described by its "state", and position of this point is just a one property of its state. The other property may be, for instance, its momentum (in Hamiltonian dynamics) or velocity (in Lagrangian dynamics). Material point may also have attributes that help us to determine external forces. For instance it may have mass m and charge e (though usually the ratio e/m enters the equation. If the only external force is gravity, and if we accept the Equivalence Principle  (as in Einstein's General Relativity), the mass is irrelevant, all material points move on geodesics, and the only data needed to determine the state are position and velocity at a given time. 

The concept of "state" enters quantum mechanics. In the standard quantum mechanics the sate is characterized by the "wave function", and in de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave mechanics the state is a pair (the quantum wave function and the position of the classical particle).

The concept of state is a tricky one as it usually involves parameters that are not "directly observable" (what is "directly observable" IS A GOOD QUESTION). For instance an instant photo of a bullet may tell us all we need to know about its position at the instant of time, but its velocity may be only guessed or totally unknown (depending on the exposer time). This should not present any philosophical difficulties - I think (cf. Plato cave allegory).  

Once we make the distinction between mathematical (or philosophical) point and a material point of mechanics - the paradox, as it seems to me, disappear completely.

Finally 3) The problem of "existence"

In mathematics we prove existence of solutions of certain equations (sometimes even uniqueness). There seems to be no problems with that. Existence of Borel non-measurable sets is more tricky - the proof of existence depends on whether we accept the axiom of choice or not. Mostly we do. But the "existence" property discussed by Langan seems to belong to philosophy, not just mathematics. There it depends on the accepted philosophical system. "Healthy" systems usually agree that tables and chairs exist. When it comes to momenta, masses or wave functions - here various options are being considered. There are, as it seems, different levels of existence. Philosophers, and even physicists, argue. John Archibald Wheeler, for instance, often stressed that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon". Though, unfortunately, he did not explain clearly what the term "observed" stands for. So, as the result the debate has started "Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks?"

As for me, if I would be forced to subscribe to some particular school of philosophy concerning the problem of existence, I would subscribe to this one

From experience.  - The  irrationality  of a  thing is  no argument  against its existence,  rather a condition of it.  

Nietzsche: Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits (ed. Cambridge University Press, 1996) - ISBN: 9780521567046, p. 182

P.S. Found by chance this interview with Jordan Peterson. He is a fantastic example of how to talk about difficult subjects without using jargon. An excellent example for me to take. Will read his 12 Rules of Life - to learn more.

Quntum Metamechanics

 Reading  Christopher Langan: "Quantum Metamechanics (QMM)".

From Wikipedia:

Langan's IQ was estimated on ABC's 20/20 to be between 195 and 210,^[2] and in 1999 he was described by some journalists as "the smartest man in America" or "in the world" (...) 

He calls his proposal "a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology"^[3] additionally contending that with CTMU he "can prove the existence of God , the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."^[1][4] Even so, Langan does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma"

Let me start with this description of the present status of quantum mechanics, pp. 273-274:

 On the bare-bones algebraic mannequin of QM, layer upon layer of clothing has been draped and piled by designers who differ strongly in their opinions of what looks good on it. To put it mildly, their visions clash with even less appeal than the underlying skeleton, tending to cancel each other. Consequently, even after their disorganized attempts to bury it under a mound of conceptual raiment, its bones poke through as starkly as ever,  dangling  and  jutting  like  the  girders  and  cranes  of  an  unfinished skyscraper. Thus, while grudgingly praised for its spectacular empirical success, it  continues  to  be  roundly  panned  for  its  abominable  aesthetics,  prompting various efforts to “dress it up” in new interpretations that on close examination turn out to be equally counterintuitive and unappealing.  

p. 275:

 (...) Even  worse,  most  of  the  complex mathematical  apparatus  of  QM  has  nowhere  to  go;  the  empirical  universe contains nothing that obviously corresponds to it and thus has “nowhere to put it”.  There  appears  to  be  nothing  in  empirical  (observable)  reality  capable  of supporting  such  things  as  probability  waves  and  the  equations  that  govern them.  

Not to mention complex numbers and most operators (Hermitian or not) .

In the Summary Langan concludes:

 (...) All  that  remains  is  to  apply  QMM  to  the  beasts  of  the quantum  jungle,  namely,  the  often  strange  and  apparently  wildly  conflicting QM  interpretations  that  have  been  freely  proliferating  at  the  frontier  where physics meets metaphysics. It has just been demonstrated how this is done, with examples. 

Langan discussed the following examples

1. Copenhagen interpretaion (Bohr and Heisenberg)
2. Observer-Created Reality (John Wheeler)
3. Consciousness-Dependent Reality (von Neumann-Wigner-Stapp)
4. Bohmian Mechanics (early David Bohm)
5. The Implicate Order (late David Bohm)
6. Many Worlds (Everett)

Of these he has granted highest scores to 2 and 3. Other interpretations scored rather badly. Those that have scored high involved either "consciousness" or "observer". My own child, EEQT, would probably get the lowest score, because in EEQT we do need either consciousness or observer and, moreover, EEQT is "dualistic", and Langan repeatedly criticizes Bohmian Mechanics for being dualistic. 

Finally, close to the end of his paper Langan concludes:

The CTMU Metaformal System is an intrinsic language, the involutional coupling of a language with a manifold whose points are the elements  of  the  signature  of  the  language,  or  in  semiotic  terminology,  its “signs”.  This  manifold  is  dynamic,  with  dual  outward  and  inward  gradients accounting for gravity and the relative linear motions of physical objects (the curvature  of  spacetime  equates  to  the  inner  expansive  gradient  of  the conspansive manifold, which is dual to the timelike collapse gradients of T). Its evolution  can  be  described  in  terms  of  two  operations,  conspansion  and  telic recursion. By virtue of conspansion, the evolving manifold closely resembles the existing formalism of quantum mechanics; and by virtue of telic recursion, this formalism can be carried into the linguistic aspect of the manifold and the deep structure of the Metaformal System. (For now, we refrain from asserting that the Metaformal System is a “theory of quantum gravity”, but this will no doubt eventually emerge.)    

Being a (mathematical) physicist I have failed to understand most of the above paragraph, with the exception of those few terms that I have put in bold. Elsewhere in Langan's paper I have found some poetically (or channeling) sounded phrases which I think I have liked, though I am not able to make (yet) much sense of them. For instance:

The  generative  dynamic  of  the  conspansive  manifold  has  primary  and secondary stages. The primary stage consists of a self-dual n-ary (n-fold unary, n  ≥  2)  operation,  conspansion,  with  two  alternating  phases,  inner  expansion  and collapse.  Inner  expansion  potentializes  the  state  transitions  of  the  syntactors coupled  in  events  –  the  points  and  events  are  brought  into  intersection  by internal rescaling through the primary quantum (point) so that they “overlap” – while collapse re-actualizes the inner-expanded syntactors as compact objects in  new  interactions.  

....

The  conspansive  manifold  evolves  by  way  of  generative  information mappings that supersede standard physical causation occurring along timelike (or null) worldlines. Inner-expansive potentialization “opens” a tertiary identity or point of the manifold to N while collapsative actualization “closes” it in T; potentialization is null, while collapse is spacelike. Together, inner expansion and collapse comprise  conspansive  potentialization-actualization cycles which form self-dual information mappings, each of which initiates and actualizes a potential by restricting it to a specific outcome for a net gain of information. 

• See also: The Portable Chris Langan
  

But there is more that has attracted my attention in Langan's paper, something more basic that I am having troubles with understanding, and, since I would really like and need to understand more, I will discuss these more basic and easier problems in my next posts.

P.S.1. From the workbench:

Today, finally, after four years long struggle, got this:

Thank you for publishing with Springer Nature.

Your article
Corresponding author (you)
Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Title
On the Bundle of Clifford Algebras Over the Space of Quadratic Forms
DOI 10.1007/s00006-022-01251-x
Article type
T.C. : ICCA 12, Hefei, August 3-7, 2020
Journal
Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras

P.S.2. The struggle with another paper still continues. For those interested here is a copy of a reply to the referees' reply sent on October 10. The paper is still in reviews.... 

P.S.3 Yesterday I have discovered that that a brand new monograph by two mathematicians  Josef Janyška and  Marco Modugno "An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Mechanics", Springer 2022, quotes seven of  my papers ((mostly coauthored). Which for me is a nice encouragement to publish more original stuff. In principle I should not care whether my papers are being quoted or not, I should care that they satisfy my requirements of being good stuff. But somehow it feels good....