On Jun 10, 2015, at 2:53 PM, JACK SARFATTI <
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:
Einstein may have been right. God does not play dice with the universe.
http://stardrive.org
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Ruth Kastner <
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:
Jack, by 'sub-empirical' I mean quantum systems described by Hilbert space states that are mathematically incompatible with the tiny 3+1 box of spacetime.
Then, “sub-empirical” is a bad choice of jargon. Just say “Hilbert space” or “quantum information field” or Bohm’s “Q” or Stapp’s “thoughtlike things” or Wheeler’s “BIT”.
Yes, so we both agree that. However, what you say next that it’s “mathematically incompatible with the tiny 3+1 box of space time” is probably now obsolete because of Sutherland’s work:
“The new model allows us to define and work with a mathematical description
in 3-dimensional space, rather than configuration space, even in the correlated manyparticle
case.” R. I. Sutherland 2006
1) Costa-de Beauregard’s Feynman zig zag (1953)
2) CAUSALLY SYMMETRIC BOHM MODEL
Roderick I. Sutherland
Centre for Time, Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
Abstract
A version of Bohm’s model incorporating retrocausality is presented, the aim being to
explain the nonlocality of Bell’s theorem while maintaining Lorentz invariance in the
underlying ontology. The strengths and weaknesses of this alternative model are
compared with those of the standard Bohm model.
Keywords:
Quantum mechanics, Bohm’s model, Retrocausality, Bell’s Theorem.
Article outline
1. Introduction
2. General structure of the model
3. Backwards-in-time effects
4. Basic mathematical formalism
5. Retrocausal influence on particle velocity
6. Some matters of consistency
7. Interpretation of negative probabilities
8. Overcoming a possible objection to negative probabilities
9. Some technical points
10. Explanation of Bell nonlocality
11. Many-particle case: velocity
12. Many-particle case: probability density
13. Theory of measurement
14. Causally symmetric model for the Dirac equation
15. Conclusions
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to construct a version of Bohm’s model that also includes the
existence of backwards-in-time influences in addition to the usual forwards causation.
The motivation for this extension is to remove the need in the existing model for a
preferred reference frame. As is well known, Bohm’s explanation for the nonlocality of
Bell’s theorem necessarily involves instantaneous changes being produced at space-like
separations, in conflict with the “spirit” of special relativity even though these changes
are not directly observable. While this mechanism is quite adequate from a purely
empirical perspective, the overwhelming experimental success of special relativity
(together with the theory’s natural attractiveness), makes one reluctant to abandon it even
at a “hidden” level. There are, of course, trade-offs to be made in formulating an
alternative model and it is ultimately a matter of taste as to which is preferred. However,
constructing an explicit example of a causally symmetric formalism allows the pros and
cons of each version to be compared and highlights the consequences of imposing such
symmetry1. In particular, in addition to providing a natural explanation for Bell
nonlocality, the new model allows us to define and work with a mathematical description
in 3-dimensional space, rather than configuration space, even in the correlated manyparticle
case.
Naïve Quantum Gravity
Roderick I. Sutherland
Centre for Time, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
A possible alternative route to a quantum theory of gravity is presented. The usual path is to quantize the gravitational field in order to introduce the statistical structure characteristic of quantum mechanics. The procedure followed here instead is to remove the statistical element of quantum theory by introducing final boundary conditions as well as initial. The relevant quantum formalism then becomes compatible with the non-statistical nature of general relativity.
1. Introduction
This paper outlines a simple theory of quantum gravity. Indeed, some would say too simple. The point is, though, that this model appears to be consistent with all existing experimental evidence. This raises questions about the main contenders for a quantum theory of gravity, such as superstring theory and loop quantum gravity. First, is the present amount of effort on these more sophisticated models justified when there is no more evidence supporting them than for the model introduced here? Second, are there other simple approaches such as the present one which could be pursued if the preconceived conventions usually imposed are relaxed somewhat?
The model discussed here adopts the traditional picture of general relativity wherein all of spacetime exists together in the form of a block universe laid out like a map through time. Gravity is then explained geometrically in the usual way via curvature in the time dimension as well as curvature in the spatial dimensions, i.e., curvature of the XT plane as well as curvature of the XY plane. In such a picture, imposing final boundary conditions as well as initial ones is seen to be a natural and indeed more symmetric possibility. This extra restriction allows an alternative approach to quantizing gravity. Instead of starting with the statistical nature of quantum mechanics and therefore attempting to make the gravitational field (or curvature) statistical as well, extra information is introduced to make the quantum mechanical description become non-statistical so that it is compatible with the original, classical form of general relativity.
An obvious additional problem which exists in the many-particle case of quantum mechanics is that the wavefunction is defined in configuration space, whereas a description in four-dimensional spacetime is needed here. This issue is found to be easily resolvable once the retrocausality associated with final boundary conditions is taken into account.
Of course I also take the quantum 'bit' as real, but you can't fit it into the empirical spacetime realm, so it's extra-empirical. This isn't 'baggage', it just describes entities that don't fit into spacetime.
Sutherland directly refutes your claim above.
PTI also does not need anything beyond standard QM to incorporate consciousness if one assumes that quantum entities are elements of consciousness already.
This is completely wrong in my opinion. Here I agree with David Deutsch that orthodox quantum theory cannot explain consciousness.
The reason you are wrong here Ruth is that the brain presponse experiments of Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem as well as the retro-PK experiments of H. Schmidt explained by Stapp as a violation of orthodox QM as well as the CIA vetted RV claims of Puthoff and Targ at SRI Popper falsify your premise.
Your model seems to assume that standard ('orthodox') QM describes only dead matter and you need something beyond it to allow for consciousness. I respectfully disagree.
But WHY DO YOU DISAGREE? Where is the logic and empirical evidence for you view? Also you now have a serious challenge to your basic thesis from R. I. Sutherland who refutes your belief with a very clear mathematical model.
Subject: Re: PTI and the issue of Consciousness.... DR. QUANTUM
From:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:15:10 -0700
To:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Ruth Kastner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:
Thanks Menas and Jack for the question--I'll clarify. The first thing to note is that my proposed interpretation (PTI) does NOT exclude consciousness and in fact allows for a natural account--I have not yet explored this in the technical literature but it is a next step. Also Deepak is right that the PTI ontology greatly mirrors that of Vedanta.
PTI does not invoke consciousness in order to explain 'collapse,' because in standard accounts, that leads to the 'Heisenberg Cut' in which one cannot say where Consciousness suddenly entered the process. It then fails to give a rigorous theoretical account--there is a 'gap' in the explanation. (It is also a form of the hard problem of consciousness--i.e., it gives no account of what made consciousness suddenly arise from allegedly nonconscious matter). I am not saying this about Menas' version, it's just a general feature of 'orthodox' approaches like Copenhagen.
Exactly.
However my retro causal theory does solve the problem !
My latest math of two days ago is an important step forward.
I doubt that any of u have tried to grasp the math model I did.
Do not rush to judgement until u do.
It's a new ball game entirely beyond orthodox no signaling QM
It's all based on Einstein action-reaction + Wheeler Feynman advanced influence
PTI bridges the explanatory gap by locating collapse as a physical process of absorption, in a direct-action account. (Note also that Wheeler was resurrecting his own direct-action account just before his death. See my IJQF paper for a discussion and reference.) But the important thing to note is that this is a greatly expanded use of the word 'physical'. I don't use that to mean only a spacetime process or only an observable process or only a process involving 'dead' matter. I just mean a dynamical process is going on whose activity is what is referred to by the quantum formalism (in a direct action theory). Again the basic point of PTI is that quantum theory is referring to a sub-empirical realm, and I include the activities of that realm in the term 'physical' just because it is a physical theory that is doing the referring.
This is too vague. Do u mean the Planck scale by "sub empirical"?
In my theory both classical IT and quantum information BIT are real. I do not need the excess mathematical baggage of "sub empirical"
Now, PTI can also solve the hard problem of consciousness by allowing that (as Deepak would like) ALL processes are ultimately in consciousness-- and therefore all the entities involved in the process are conscious at some elementary level--including those termed 'physical' in PTI. In fact Deepak and I discussed this point in our recent conversation for his Curious Minds series.
So PTI in no way exclused consciousness, but its emphasis is on giving a fully developed theoretical account of the process of 'measurement' with no explanatory gap. I hope you will also keep in mind that it is hard enough to gain acceptance by the guardians of orthodoxy with 'plain vanilla' PTI (which does not invoke consciousness explicitly) let alone with moving on to solve the hard problem of consciousness.
Too late it's a done deal. I did it.
(Peter Lewis' recent straw man caricature of TI in the Internet Encyclopedia of Phil. is an unfortunate case in point. I've written to the editor asking for a correction and proper update with appropriate references.) Please be patient; I am certainly exploring this and will address it in future writings.
The bottom line: you can have an all-consciousness ontology in PTI. It's just semantics as to what we call the different levels of dynamical activity in Nature (i.e. phenomenal vs noumenal in Kantian terms). See also my new book (http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p993#t=reviews) which presents these issues and discusses how PTI allows for free will--which is certainly an activity in consciousness! Dr. Quantum has reviewed it favorably--see the link (thanks Fred!)
Wake up and taste my coffee.
Best
Ruth
From:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: RE: Crisis at the Edge of Physics - the student surpasses the teacher
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:11:41 +0000
Please also see http://cosmology.com/ConsciousTime115.html
Kashmir Śaivism is methodical, addresses both the cosmic and individual conscious awareness. It does not reject anything in the universe. Modern efforts to bridge science and perennial philosophies may begin with the insights from this ancient system. And it parallels western philosophical systems.
From: Deepak Chopra [
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 8:18 AM
To: JACK SARFATTI
Subject: Re: Crisis at the Edge of Physics - the student surpasses the teacher
Consciousness = That which makes experience possible , cognitive or perceptual = Ground of Being or existence - not necessarily human or that of biological species but of Cosmos , Unmanifest Being , Source of all that exists
Space time are experienced or conceptualized in consciousness .
Over dinner in Helesinki , Basil Hiley ( who of course did not use consciousness ) stated that his/ Bohm's implicate order preceded Space/ Time .He said space time were emergent phenomena .
I'm only suggesting here that his implicate order, the sub empirical domain that Ruth refers to , the Unmanifest of Vedanta , all refer to the ground of Being - in Eastern traditions = Cosmic Consciousness of which the universe is its physical body . These are not my ideas but classic Vedanta
Deepak Chopra
"The future of God is the evolution of our own consciousness from separation to unity, from a fragmented mind to a whole mind, from thought which is in time to Awareness which is not in time." -- Deepak Chopra
On Jun 8, 2015, at 8:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:My point the pack is that your statement is meaningless until you get a clear and scientific definition of what you mean by the word "consciousness"
You say you are on board with Ruth but as far as I know Ruth never even deals with that word consciousness and her physics if I'm wrong Ruth will correct me
Sent from my iPad
