Here I would
like to mention one particular physicist and philosopher: Bernard d’Espagnat.
In his paper “Problems in Objectizing”,
d’Espagnat opts for “Mind-Independent
Reality”, and, in particular, he also supports Hans Primas’s proposals which
EEQT developed into a full-fledged mathematical model.
But even
d’Espagnat is somewhat pessimistic about the final results of such
an approach. He ends his paper with the comment:
…although we cannot know Mind-Independent Reality,
still we get, through physics, not fully deceitful glimpses of it. I
feel Primas’s optimistic guess somehow strengthens my position in
this matter.
Waves and Things:
Information!
In EEQT we
are dealing with two kinds of objects: material objects about the
existence of which we have no doubts, and which are necessary if we
want to tell engineers what to do; but also we have “wave
functions” that are necessary for modeling quantum phenomena - two different categories of objects. These
two kind of objects are coupled together – there
is an exchange of information between them.
That is why in our theory we have not only “dynamics” –
exchange of forces, but also, what we called, “binamics” –
exchange of “bits of information”. Therefore our theory can be
considered as one step towards an introduction to the active
role of information in physics.
I was already well-situated in my career as a scientist when I
made the decision to follow this path so it was not so easy to attack
me – it was enough to just ignore my work.
The Three Questions of John
Archibald Wheeler
Here comes
the important term that is rather new in physics: Information. It has
become more popular since John Archibald Wheeler published his famous
“It from Bit” article "Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links", and asked three important questions:
How come existence?
How come the quantum?
How come the “one world” out of many
observer-participants?
The simplest
answer to the first question, “How come existence”, is, I would
say, existence comes from “timeless
information”.
Profile photo for ChatGPT
ChatGPT
·
AI bot
BETA
An AI bot writing helpful answers
What does John Wheeler mean by his famous 'It from bit' idea?
Profile photo for ChatGPT
ChatGPT
John Wheeler's "It from bit" idea is a concept that suggests that all physical reality is ultimately based on information. In other words, the physical world can be thought of as being made up of bits of information rather than physical particles. This idea is rooted in the field of quantum mechanics and suggests that the universe is fundamentally digital in nature.
Tell me more
P.S.1. To my wife: The Air That I Breathe - The Hollies
P.S.4. 25-06 12:45 Finished Sec. 6.7 "Calculating the conformal structure". Updated the file.
P.S.5. A Reader has sent me a link to a paper by Alexander Prahauser "Hegel in Mathematics"
At the end of this paper I am finding, in particular, these gramatically correct sentences:
"From this fermionic superpoint, through a series
of canonical extensions, emanates a piece of 11-dimensional spacetime R
10,1|32
,
which has precisely the properties that are demanded by M-theory, the joint
generalization of string theory and supergravity. Our physical universe would
then be determined by some manifold in ∞ − SF S or some extension thereof,
with some force field on it that is the unified fundamental force which manifests
as the four fundamental forces of our universe after M through a process called
KK-compactification, which yields the four-dimensional spacetime we all know
and love.
At this point mathematics becomes difficult to avoid. However, it should
be noted that a conjecture by Sati and Schreiber called Hypothesis H, based on
the observations by Sati in [21], states that such a field would be described by
a cycle in the fourth differential equivariant J-twisted cohomotopy on X, so a
differential equivariant refinement of a section of the J-morphism into the 4-
dimensional spere. Given the importance of the n-dimensional spheres and the
J-morphism in homotopy theory (and in general), this result would be highly
satisfying."
Frankly speaking I consider it as a "word salad" that has nothing to do with Reality. Escapism into total abstraction - that is how I call it.
It seems to
me that the thinking of those who write that “Today there seem to
be no phenomena which contradict quantum theory – perhaps with the
sole exception that there are definite (“classical”) phenomena at
all!” is highly compartmentalized. Such a person “thinks with a
forked brain, ”exactly as is the case with right-wing
authoritarians. The Dictionary of Psychology tells us also that:
"So
the picture of authoritarian followers after all these years of
research is far from flattering – unless you are a potential
dictator."
Indeed, the
picture of many of the quantum theorists emerging from their
“decoherence” papers is not very flattering. We will see it
better after we delve into the subject somewhat deeper.
Further Incoherence
So, let us
continue with the preface of the book about Decoherence. First we
find a statement that quantum theory, “from a conservative point of
view … may well be called inconsistent.” Next comes the admission
that standard textbook arguments “are insufficient for several
reasons”, and that “conventional treatments” (of the classical
limit of quantum theory) “are flawed for a simple reason: they do
not represent any realistic situation.”
So, we now
know how really bad quantum theory is. It is in terrible shape,
everything that is definite and real contradicts it. So, what to do?
The answer,
from reading the contributions to this book and to other books and
papers, lies in “decoherence”.
But what is
this decoherence? Is it something that is objective? Or is it
something that occurs only in the minds of some theoretical
physicists? In order to answer this question we need to look into
these minds.
What is this
decoherence that is so fashionable nowadays? According to the French Wikipedia:
The quantum decoherence is a physical phenomenon capable of explaining the transition between them quantum physical rules and classic physical rules as we know them, on a macroscopic level. More particularly, this theory provides an answer, recognized as being the most complete to date, to the paradox of Schrödinger cat and at quantum measurement problem.
The theory of decoherence was introduced by Heinz Dieter Zeh in 1970
So, we learn
that “it is a physical phenomenon”. Is it a definite phenomenon
or not? If it is definite, then, according to Erich Joos, it would
contradict quantum theory. That would be bad. So, I am deducing that
it is not a very definite phenomenon. But, it is said that it is a
“physical phenomenon”. So, let us check what Mr. Zeh has to say.
According to Zeh’s article in the Decoherence book, this
decoherence occurs when “the complete
information about the passage of the particle is carried away (into
the “environment”) in some physical form.”
Information and
Environment: What is hidden by Decoherence
So, we have
two new terms, one is information, the other one is “environment”
– put in quotation marks by Zeh. Why in quotation marks? I checked
the number of occurrences of “environment” in the book, and the
result is 372. But I could not find even one precise definition. What
I have found, however, is that
In quantum cosmology (where no environment exists),
decoherence is only meaningful with respect to local observers
(subsystems).
What is real? Is Nobel Prize real?
That there
may be a problem with “environment of the Universe”, I can
imagine, but then he goes to say that decoherence is meaningful only
with respect to a local observer. But what exactly is “local
observer”? And does that mean that before there were any observers
in the universe, this mysterious decoherence did not happen? Is
decoherence really something physical or it happens only in the mind
of a physicist?
It is, in fact, a physicist who separates, in his
mind, the Universe, in two parts; one part he calls “the system”,
another part he calls “environment”. Then he starts calculating
and comes up with some numbers. Another physicist will make the
division in a different way, and will come up with a different set of
numbers. So, it seems that all this decoherence business is another
way of saying that quantum theory really is not able to get rid of
subjectivity, and all this fashionable decoherence program is just a
way to hide this fact under a pretentious name. Is that the case?
Well, I will
show that it is even worse than that. But we need to talk about
Schrödinger’s cat first.
To be continued
P.S.1. What is REAL? Here is an example:
Mark Knopfler &
Emmylou Harris - I Dug Up A Diamond Real Live Roadrunning Official Live Video
My wife likes this... so this is for her. Very REAL lyrics are here.
P.S.4. 02-06-23 19:10 It’s the movie they really don’t want you to see: #WhatIsAWoman?
P.S.5. 03-06-23 8:38 Yesterday a Reader wrote to me asking for a help with one of the ``inventions'' of a Polish mystic-mathematician Hoene-Wronski. I knew the name, but nothing more. So I checked the internet resources. Wikipedia tells us, in particular, that:
In science, Hoene-Wroński set himself an extraordinary task: the complete reform of philosophy as well as that of mathematics, astronomy and technology. He elaborated not only a system of philosophy, but also applications to politics, history, economics, law, psychology, music and pedagogy. It was his aspiration to reform human knowledge in an "absolute, that is, ultimate" manner.
In 1803, Wroński joined the Marseille Observatory, and began developing an enormously complex theory of the structure and origin of the universe. During this period, he took up a correspondence with nearly all of the major scientists and mathematicians of his day, and was well respected at the observatory. In 1803 Wroński "experienced a mystical illumination, which he regarded as the discovery of the Absolute."[3]
Well, I have had my own illumination in Marseille as well. And similarly to Wronski i saw that at the foundations of the universe is an `open loop process', a `multi-threaded algorithm', not an "equation". EEQT was one of the off-springs of this illumination.
Additionally I was writing in my journal after the illumination the following
So work, work, work. Work gives results. Sooner or later. Work gives satisfaction. It gives happiness. I think, for example, of those moments when I did something. When I have accomplished something. Then it is good, then there is happiness. On the other hand, I think about the remark of M. Blau that I am somehow unhappy, dissatisfied. Why? Because I don't produce anything, I don't create anything. So every thing made gives happiness. And happiness is probably the sum of things produced. Almost certainly. Happiness comes from giving. From giving the best of yourself. Birds probably know this - they sing. Flowers know - they smell and give colors. The sun knows - it gives light. And I should know and remember it myself. To give others the best. And one more thing: that flowers do not look if someone smells. Flowers do not look if someone is present, if someone is watching. Whether someone is around. Flowers only look at whether they smell good. They give. And it's accumulating somewhere. They give to the Creator. And it is somewhere. It's not going to die. It is already there. Irreversibly. Some part of non-being is transformed into being? Are we sure it is so? But shouldn't one make an effort to make one's work available to others? Yes and no. The fact is that sharing no longer adds to the sum of happiness. Which sum depends solely on the number of things completed and released. So creation is important. Hence the happiness of young Werther's creative anguish.
Of course, today we are taught that birds sing and flowers smell for mundane reasons - ``the goal of attracting attention.'' Simple evolution," they say. One can look at it that way too, but one loses infinitely more with such a limited understanding of reality.
Two weeks later, now in Florence, still influenced by the ``illumination" I was writing this:
Here we return to the domain. Inside, nothing can be created. All creation takes place on the boundary. It is the boundary that is most interesting. It is through the boundary that opening takes place, it is on the boundary that causality takes place, it is on the shore that time flows. There is no time in the middle. The middle is Euclidean, in the middle nothing does age, but also nothing is born.
P.S.6. Perhaps I should not worry so much about non-orientability. Here is an interesting paper:
The double cover is orientable. And there is a general theorem stating that every unorientable manifold has a double cover that is orientable. So the double cover is the answer! I knew it!!! More here: Understanding the orientable double cover.
"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).
"... 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.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."
.jpg)
