- #106
tom.stoer
Science Advisor
- 5,779
- 172
I wish you much successCareful said:If the work is as good as I think it is, it will become known sooner or later. I am not in a hurry.
I wish you much successCareful said:If the work is as good as I think it is, it will become known sooner or later. I am not in a hurry.
Then I jump to your starting points 3.Careful said:Yes, here I go further than Penrose and ''dead matter'' can have a minimal form of consciousness too.Fra said:1) Is it ok to assume that you by conscious beeing = any physical observer. (ie. any physical system, that observers it's environment?)
Careful said:The starting point is the philosophical section three.
Noldus said:Now let me explain why this is not in conflict with the notion of free will, but first let me clarify how I see ’quasi local consciounesses’ make ’quasi local’ measurements. Let \psi be the state of the universe written down in the ontological orthogonal local basis constituting the realities in the path integral formulation. The reality as seen by a quasi local conscious observer is not given by \psi but can be constructed from \psi by inserting the quasi local identity operator written down in terms of the irreducible projection operators coming from the spectral decomposition of the quasi local Hamiltonian.
Ontological basis = basis of states which are supposed to be ''real''. If you write out the path integral formulation of say field theory, then the classical field configurations are preferred hidden variables.Fra said:What do you mean by ontological local basis? and what does the realities in PI refer to?
More or less, this picture is much more refined and complicated in section 8 (where there is a continuum of super observers). But in section 3, the issue I raise is the following : where does consciousness of macroscopic observers come from ? Why do ants, humans and so on have this gift but say fullerene molecules probably don't (to any reasonable extend)? I want a dynamical theory of consciousness, one in which the material configuration feeds consciousness and consciousness feeds the material configuration. This requires a dynamical theory of a superobserver, but alas it cannot be written into a symbolic language (it can however to a good approximation, but not exactly). However, once a conscious individual observer has been formed, it has all the ''powers'' ascribed to by Von-Neumann.Fra said:Can you clarify? Somehow I THINK you mean that there are one observer, observing another observer. So that the first observer takes the role of a "superobserver" except of course, it's not, it's just a normal obsever. So that the "quasi local" observer you refer to, are the "secondary observer" distinguished as coherent subsystem living withing the image of the first observer? Is this right?
Careful said:Ontological basis = basis of states which are supposed to be ''real''. If you write out the path integral formulation of say field theory, then the classical field configurations are preferred hidden variables.
Careful said:More or less, this picture is much more refined and complicated in section 8 (where there is a continuum of super observers).
Careful said:But in section 3, the issue I raise is the following : where does consciousness of macroscopic observers come from ? Why do ants, humans and so on have this gift but say fullerene molecules probably don't (to any reasonable extend)? I want a dynamical theory of consciousness, one in which the material configuration feeds consciousness and consciousness feeds the material configuration.
Yes, one more or less can. Locally, there is of course the standard basis associated to local representations of the Poincare algebra. To glue these together is a non-unique procedure, but I am fairly confident it can be done in a reasonable way. All I wanted to say in that section is that path integrals start from such an ontological basis which has no physical significance and that this is a severe limitation (classical thought which should not be there).Fra said:Mmm, it sounds like I may have some issues with this.
My question is how an observer can infer this "real basis". Unless you have something special in mind, this is a "realist construct" that I have hard to accept as a starting point.
The continuum just is for very good reasons. Your quantum attitude cannot be consistently applied to all levels of ''reality''.Fra said:Ok I'll look at this later. But my issues here, will apply also to the continuum. How is the continuum inferred. I distinguish what's mathematically possible, and what's encodable by an observer.
I don't care about people's problems with words they should use because they feel it might be unscientific to do so.Fra said:This is where it is starts to get unclear. So I do not quite ask this question. I probably partially associate to this; except your way of phrasing the question seems a little more existential than how I see it. Even if you have good thinking, I think a lot of people may shrug by notions like "theory of consciousness".
Your logic is way too limited here and the standard classical atomistic point of view. The problem is that in GR, the universe is holistic: there are no identities a priori, no I's and therefore no ''self-reflection'' or self interaction at the basic level. You view the world as an ensemble of interacting subsystems, each with their own Hilbert space and well defined state. In my view this is totally wrong and certainly completely contradictory to Mach's philosphy and QFT as well. Indeed, the notion of a single extended particle within a curved spacetime is not even sharply defined, it is only so ultralocally. And, the extend to which it is not so, depends upon interactions with the rest of the universe. So, identity is something which should be ''born'' out of grandiose holistic view. It should be created, just like your identity is created when your mother's egg met your father's sperm. This requires a superobserver(s) of some kind and there is no way out of this.Fra said:They way I phrase this is just how a physical system can encode, and act upon it's own state (incorporating informatio nabout the environment). In this, I see no principal difference between humans and electrons except orders of magnitude in complexity and levels of organisation of the complexion set where the view of the environment is encoded.
The word conscioussness isn't something I would use here, although as I understand you, I would probable label this thing just "self-reflection" or selfinteraction. It just would mean that a system responds to it's own state, and this (in my view) ALL systems do, even an atom. And I picture it to related to a connection between the holography and the action, since an quantum systems evolution; in the abscence of perturbation; is simply a function of it's own initial state. It's a kind of self-interaction only. I connect this to the foundations of the logic of inference and the foundations of probability theory and QM logic.
But it is more than information processing! It is also information creating.Fra said:What I have in mind has nothing to do with human intelligence, it's just a basic property of an evolution information processing agent
A. Neumaier said:I wouldn't call him a QG physicist
That is true, but given your enthousiasm, I anticipated that you would finally get to page 160. I hope my premature extrapolation did not turn out to be unjustified. If you insist, I will change entire to 60%.arkajad said:Johan has an evidence only for ca 90 pages.
You already did partially on your blog when writing about non-linear connections. Words I only learned about because of you and as far as I know you learned them because of me (in either by digging into the literature for correspondance of my geometrical structures to already published work).arkajad said:Moreover, most of my over 100 exchanges with Johan were around a single topic of his paper. He asked me not to write publicly about it before publishing his paper. Now that his paper is out, I may write about it - in due time.
Careful said:You already did partially on your blog when writing about non-linear connections.
Careful said:The continuum just is for very good reasons. Your quantum attitude cannot be consistently applied to all levels of ''reality''.
a) sure, I don't either, it was just a feedback on impression from your paper. Maybe I'm not the only one that's confused. But I certainly try to not confuse the message with choice of words.Careful said:I don't care about people's problems with words they should use because they feel it might be unscientific to do so.
...
But it is more than information processing! It is also information creating.
Careful said:Your logic is way too limited here and the standard classical atomistic point of view. The problem is that in GR, the universe is holistic: there are no identities a priori
How is Haag's theorem a cornerstone of quantum gravity?Careful said:Nobody so far had a good answer to Coleman-Mandula, Weinberg-Witten and Haag theorem... these are the cornerstones of quantum gravity.
Haag's theorem is extremely problematic for QFT; hitherto, it should be adressed in a theory of quantum gravity. If you know another way out of Haag than I do, you may want to adress it.DarMM said:How is Haag's theorem a cornerstone of quantum gravity?
Well, there is no "way out of" Haag's theorem. It's just a theorem. In perturbation theory it isn't a problem and nonperturbatively you just build the theory in a different Hilbert space.Careful said:Haag's theorem is extremely problematic for QFT; hitherto, it should be adressed in a theory of quantum gravity. If you know another way out of Haag than I do, you may want to adress it.
Sure it presents a problem for QFT which is by definition a perturbative game (at least if you follow the treatment of Weinberg). In that sense, Haag's theorem forces you to find a very different set of physical principles behind QFT.DarMM said:Well, there is no "way out of" Haag's theorem. It's just a theorem.
But that doesn't make any physical sense you see, Fock space is motivated from very good principles. You reason like a mathematician without any physical guideline; I have told the same to another mathematician on this forum once. There is nothing wrong with Fock space and if you think there is, please motivate yourself. Haag's theorem points towards a much deeper shortcoming in my opinion.DarMM said:nonperturbatively you just build the theory in a different Hilbert space.
Careful said:Sure it presents a problem for QFT which is by definition a perturbative game (at least if you follow the treatment of Weinberg). In that sense, Haag's theorem forces you to find a very different set of physical principles behind QFT.
MTd2 said:http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5113
Foundations of a theory of quantum gravity
Johan Noldus
[...]
This paper/book was uploaded today. I put his name on google and saw that marcus put him on an observation list a few years ago:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=102147
marcus said:Now I see that this PF forum can actually sometimes serve as an OUTLAW CAFE in some of its threads. We can help compensate for deficiencies in the system.
One way to do this is simply to LIST the divergent QG approaches and to try our best to shoot them down. [...]
If these novel approaches are natural allies, not rivals, then why should we concentrate on shooting them down? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU ALWAYS TRY TO DO WITH PHYSICS IDEAS, and it is GOOD FOR THEM. [...]
Also NOLDUS, whom I just noticed. What is wrong with Noldus ideas. He has a way to reform quantum mechanics from what he calls a "diehard" gen rel perspective. Well at least on the surface that sounds great. The possibility really should be seriously considered that whatever is keeping QM from merging with GR is basically QM's fault. People are reluctant to look at it this way, but Noldus attempts to bend QM into shape [...]
MTd2 said:This thread was attended by Garrett Lisi, Thomas Larson and Careful. It seems that careful also keeps track of this author, as google point out his participation explaining Johan Noldus' ideas on other threads.
This is kind of a surprise to me.
I had only forgotten a pair of quotation tags; this is now corrected.MTd2 said:Well, given that you put unfair words in my hands,
I'd have been more interested in _your_ response to the paper in the light of my remarks.MTd2 said:I will forward you Noldus' answer
Writing equations of motions are a way to propose a theory, but as long as one hasn't begun to solve it, one doesn't know that renormalization problems are absent. For example, the equations of motions written down for QED in the early days of quantum mechanics appeared quite innocent but turned out to lead to divergences in second order perturbation theory, indicating the need for renormalization.MTd2 said:(c) The way the renormalization problem is attacked is by abandonning causality and cluster decomposition, there are no apriori classical lagrangians and coupling constants only arise when solving the equations of motion; not by merely putting them in by hand.
The private exchange was so little convincing that I copied many of my email remarks on the prior 90 page preprint that we had discussed into the preceding post - none of my criticism had any influence on the current form of the manuscript.MTd2 said:Concerning the axioms, it was explained you in private several nice reasons why he chose not to write them in a full mathematical form:
I measured the paper on the preprint server by its abstract. If the current version does not satisfy what is promised in the abstract, the abstract is misleading.MTd2 said:This book is not finished and it not claimed to be.
I deliberately waited with my post assessing the whole paper till the emotionally heated part of the discussion was over.MTd2 said:I think it must be clear that you seem to be personally angry towards the author
I was only discussing the 90 page version he sent me first (on December 12). I didn't read the later versions he sent me since it was clear that it was still work in progress and much more was to come. Since I didn't want to spend so much time on a half-baked manuscript, I preferred to wait for the public version now on the arXiv. Unfortunately, this online version is still only half-baked.MTd2 said:You were not sent a 90 page preprint, bu one about 130 pages thick.
MTd2 said:Noldus : But, on the other hand, as I said, I do not have a standard
dynamical system. I don't have a (global) Hamiltonian, my formulation is
much more like the standard 4-covariant formulation of general relativity.
Neumaier : Of course, one cannot have a global Hamiltonian in a diffeomorphism
invariant theory. Nevertheless, one still has a symmetric hyperbolic
structure, and this is what allows one to formulate an initial-value
problem in local covariant coordinates. Solving that will most likely
bring up renormalization issues.
Noldus : No, there are several ways of understanding this; let me give you two reasons why covariant formulations are better suited:
(a) in GR if you work in a physical gauge such as the Gaussian gauge, then usually you run into inconsistencies because of the physics of GR (focal points); any physical gauge in GR suffers from similar problems. Of course, if you take suitable coordinate systems, nothing happens. The best example is that of the original Schwartzschild solution which blows up at the event horizon, but the physics doesn't and indeed going to Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates gives you a very different picture. So, the idea here is that renormalization problems in QFT show up because of a bad ''physical gauge choice'' (and I will explain in a minute why my theory proves this to be the case) ; the Heisenberg equations of GR are generally covariant, but the Heisenberg commutation relations are not. They are attached to a physical ''gauge'', that is the hypersurfaces of equal ''time'' should be spacelike. Now, you may think of causality (the commutation relations) as kind of an ''initial value formulation'' of a fully relativistic dynamics. But my theory proves that is wrong. There is not so much freedom to pick initial data on an initial hypersurface, the only freedom is given by a data on a holographic two-sphere at infinity. So, my suspicion is that the ordinary formulation of interacting QFT is **overconstrained** and that's why you run into troubles, you ''gauge fix'' more than there are ''gauge'' degrees of freedom.
(b) [...] Now, in my theory, there are no coupling constants, but each term in front of a monomial of normal ordered creation and annihilation operators comes with free functions in terms of the Lorentz covariant four momenta, physical polarization vectors and spacetime coordinates. [...] So, it is a very different scheme, with plenty of more freedom and no a priori constraints due to causality.
MTd2 said:Concerning my promises; at least I give plenty of plausibility arguments. Rovelli for example writes a book ''Quantum Gravity'' and there is not even a theory inside it (no proposal for a dynamics even), Smolin writes ''three roads to quantum gravity'' and he does not even outline a single road in any detail. In version 3, there will be no word changed, on the contrary, more evidence will be provided that these claims are correct. Bold conjectures are OK as far as they are reasonable. Mathematics is full of them, see the Poncare or Fermat conjecture or the Riemann hypothesis... they are the driving force of the field."
MTd2 said:Smolin writes ''three roads to quantum gravity'' and he does not even outline a single road in any detail
In this case, I read the 134 pages; I can't check it anymore since I delete attachments from my mailbox. In any case, this doesn't affect at all the content of my comments.MTd2 said:Noldus sent me this email to show that he sent the 134 page version and not the 90page one:
[...] I opened the file and it is dated 12th december, 2010. It has 134 pages.
But they are misleadingly announced in the abstract as being ''logically consistent''.MTd2 said:"Concerning my promises; at least I give plenty of plausibility arguments.
Did they claim to do that? If not, they are faithful to their promises.MTd2 said:Rovelli for example writes a book ''Quantum Gravity'' and there is not even a theory inside it (no proposal for a dynamics even), Smolin writes ''three roads to quantum gravity'' and he does not even outline a single road in any detail.
As you can see, he still does post, through the address of MTd2. But it is borderline to violating the rule of PF that states:Fra said:Too bad Careful doesn't post more in this thread.
Fra said:This is why I see the next step as the motivation behind his starting point.
/Fredrik
A. Neumaier said:As you can see, he still does post, through the address of MTd2.'
MTd2 said:Well, he posted an entry to this year's contest on FQXI:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/905
On that entry, you can post questions to the author, like in a forum's thread or blog post.
Yes, through your mediation he comes across much more civilized. Thanks for filtering that out!MTd2 said:He doesn't use my account. Any admin can check that all IP acesses of my account comes just from my country, Brazil. I just forward part of what he answers, which I heavily edit, that is, I remove all strong words and observations that he likes to use here.
OK, this is a proposal of where to start. But the question is - if one does all this, does he end up with a theory that has a well-defined dynamics so that computations do not result in divergences?MTd2 said:Alright, I more or less understand what Noldus wants to say.
[...]
So, we have to apply the most general structures possible within what is reasonable in gravity.
The tangent space must not only be just Lorentz invariant, but Poincaré invariant.
The geometry must not only be Riemann, but Finsler.
The quantum vector space must not only be Hilbert (definite norm), but Nevanlinna (indefinite norm).
The wave function must not only be complex, but consist of Clifford numbers.
There must be covariance, but just not only have curvature on space-time, but have torsion on the tangent space.
The statistics must be of the most general type, since it is not constrained anymore by coleman-mandula, because there is no restriction for causality when something is not observed.