Is the Creation of Our Universe from Nothing Truly Viable and Consistent?

[czes]

Holographic Universe has 2 levels:
1. Information is stored on the screen - no image, no events, no time.
2. Information goes to relation with each other due to a specific program - it shows an image, events and time runs.

I do not know how the information can be stored before it starts to run. What is a pure information when it is not in relation to another information , is it something or is it nothing ?

 

[apeiron]

I am still not convinced. I mean I understand your reasoning, but ontologically you still have something, now you call it potential, and you have a model to describe it.

I agree. At the end of the day, you are still left with "something" even if it is a naked potential, and that is bad. But it is also the most minimal possible notion of something, which is good. It is less than zero, so a step further back in the origin of things (like definite presences and absences).

The fact we have a model to describe it is not an issue as that is epistemology, whereas the potential is ontological. The model is our mental construct, not an actual constraint on reality.

You reasoning is not circular, it's something like "negative dialectics"; your approaching "nothing" dialectically. But this reasoning does only allow you describe what nothing is NOT. You "stepwise undress" your ontologigal basis - or better, you "change your ontological categories". That's perfectly OK, but still does not allow you to fully describe nothing - which seems to be self-contradictory and therefore impossible at all (to me).

You are quite right. The logic here is "dialectic" in the general, rather than Marxist, sense. And progress backwards has to come by folding back into itself what we find around us unfolded. We live in a broken symmetry, so we work backwards to restore the original symmetry.

But again, it is not "nothing" that lies at the end of this trail but a naked potential (the potential to become dialectically divided into the "nothingness everywhere" that seems an accurate description of a heat death universe).

The important thing here is to be able to put the OP - how could a universe arise from nothing - into a developmental ontology.

The conventional metaphysics presumes eternalism and so cannot escape eternalism. If you say the laws of physics "always were", or worse still, put them right outside the reference frame in some Platonia, then you will always have a problem talking about the origin of all things.

But if instead your presumption becomes "even the laws of physics developed/evolved", then that can become quite a different discussion. You can switch to an ontology where in the beginning there was just a naked potential (the least form of being). And the laws of physics, or however else you want to term the ontological global constraints, would now exist (in fully realized fashion) at the end of time. This is of course the Aristotelean answer - final cause.

You can't do physics w/o a physical context how negative it may be.

Of course not. But again, that is an epistemological issue. What I am arguing is that a developmental ontology can motivate the construction of development-based models.

So the "physical context" is the system's global constraints. Conventional modelling just frames the global constraints in a timeless, unsituated fashion. I am arguing that the model needs to include a representation of constraints that develop over time, and are not fully realized until the end of time.

This is the way ancient philosophers thought, and the way modern biologists think. The radical thing here is suggesting it can also be done at the most general level of modelling - fundamental physics - so as to think about the origin of the universe in a more comprehensive light.

 

[apeiron]

I do not know how the information can be stored before it starts to run. What is a pure information when it is not in relation to another information , is it something or is it nothing ?

Plainly, you cannot have information without a reference frame, a context, an observer. Holography in fact is a recognition of this.

To have a definite nothing (a 0 instead of a 1), you have to have an equally definite observer or context to tell that this is so. It is a dyadic relationship between a global context and a local event.

Holography now puts some mathematical structure into this relationship. Plug in the number of dimensions and some dynamical constants, like the speed of light/interaction, and you can actually model a context - the event horizon, or horizon for an event.

 

[qsa]

But again, it is not "nothing" that lies at the end of this trail but a naked potential (the potential to become dialectically divided into the "nothingness everywhere" that seems an accurate description of a heat death universe).

Reality came about because of a specific mathematical structure allowed it to be. only the mathematics allowed it, and mathematics itself exists and you cannot put it in terms of potential, it either is or isn't. If you define the word "potential" as anything can happen regardless, then the word looses all power. But, if you define it as a possibility based on merit then that is also bad in our case. There are gzillion mathematical structures, and they do not lead to any dynamic universe, but it JUST happened that there was one that did. It did not have to be at all ie. it is not like it was bound to happen, so the "potential" does not make sense even if you wanted to use the maths "potential" to force creation. With the existence of math you could maneuver a bit with the "potential", but looks extremely weak.

 

[czes]

Plainly, you cannot have information without a reference frame, a context, an observer. Holography in fact is a recognition of this.

To have a definite nothing (a 0 instead of a 1), you have to have an equally definite observer or context to tell that this is so. It is a dyadic relationship between a global context and a local event.

Holography now puts some mathematical structure into this relationship. Plug in the number of dimensions and some dynamical constants, like the speed of light/interaction, and you can actually model a context - the event horizon, or horizon for an event.

Yes. It depends also on the interpretation of the QM. In Copenhagen interpretation the wavefunction collapses and evoluate from nothing again with a certain probability. In the more or less deterministic interpretations like Bohm, Cramer, Rovelli and other the wave function doesn't collapse but the superposition remains in other relations.

It is commonly accepted that our Universe is a part of the biger one and we receive new information from the galaxies discovered during the expanssion of our Event Horizon (Davis, Lineweaver). The information was there but we haven't see it till it cames to our Event Horizon.
How it was before the Big Bang. Was there an information which wasn't related to another information and therefore it wasn't seen at all ?
Does the existence mean a relation with an observer ?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Yes. It depends also on the interpretation of the QM. In Copenhagen interpretation the wavefunction collapses and evoluate from nothing again with a certain probability.

No. A universe that contains nothing is invariant under the Hamiltonian dynamics. Hence nothing remains nothing unless something is measured. But there is no-one to measure, hence there is no collapse.

 

[QuantumClue]

If we have a collection of data, say, S_2=|\psi_1>, |\psi_2>...|\psi_n> and say this abstractly collects all the data of the universe, then how can data come from nothing?

The pre-state of the universe let's call it \alpha must also have information S_1=|\phi_1>, |\phi_2>...|\phi_n> meaning it cannot be an empty set Ø, as it must contain all the valuable information \Psi which is the total information to allow an equivalent union between S_1 and S_2. If the information of S_1 is sufficient for the information contained in S_2 then you can unify the two as being one dependant set call it \beta.

Using the idea that something can come from nothing goes against logic. It supposes that something which has meaning and possibly even a physical character can apparently come from what we call nothing, but equally puzzling is that we can not even call it nothing, because nothing is still something! So one might say that something must come from something else. And if we apply our logic to the universe, then the beginning of time must have all the relevant information contained within it S_1 to allow the birth of information S_2 after the existence of time, which also presupposes time did not exist before the big bang, which is consistent with relativity.

If the universe had all the information it required in the beginning, is akin to stating \Psi \in \beta where \Psi is the state vector of the universe, and \beta is again the two sets S_1 and S_2.

 

[QuantumClue]

No. A universe that contains nothing is invariant under the Hamiltonian dynamics. Hence nothing remains nothing unless something is measured. But there is no-one to measure, hence there is no collapse.

A genius response, because we are frequently told the stuff of quantum mechanics, the world of probabilities and possible measurements is the stuff of mind stuff!

But there is also a flaw with it. A universe of nothing does indeed refer to the idea that something is nothing until it is measured, but if no one was around to observe the big bang, how did the clock turn, so-to-speak? Who was there to observe the initial conditions so that we had a physical universe, nearly 15 billion years ago?

Apparently the universe found a way, and supposing there is no grand creator in the universe, then our understanding of quantum mechanics seems to be deeply incomplete, highlighting the so-called measurement problem.

So perhaps the idea that nothing refers to not observing the system is not completely true, for how can it be? Such as the idea that perhaps before the big bang there was equally nothing, because how can something come from nothing?

 

[QuantumClue]

If we have a collection of data, say, S_2=|\psi_1>, |\psi_2>...|\psi_n> and say this abstractly collects all the data of the universe, then how can data come from nothing?

The pre-state of the universe let's call it \alpha must also have information S_1=|\phi_1>, |\phi_2>...|\phi_n> meaning it cannot be an empty set Ø, as it must contain all the valuable information \Psi which is the total information to allow an equivalent union between S_1 and S_2. If the information of S_1 is sufficient for the information contained in S_2 then you can unify the two as being one dependant set call it \beta.

Using the idea that something can come from nothing goes against logic. It supposes that something which has meaning and possibly even a physical character can apparently come from what we call nothing, but equally puzzling is that we can not even call it nothing, because nothing is still something! So one might say that something must come from something else. And if we apply our logic to the universe, then the beginning of time must have all the relevant information contained within it S_1 to allow the birth of information S_2 after the existence of time, which also presupposes time did not exist before the big bang, which is consistent with relativity.

If the universe had all the information it required in the beginning, is akin to stating \Psi \in \beta where \Psi is the state vector of the universe, and \beta is again the two sets S_1 and S_2.

Yes, I am qouting myself :) Just been thinking a little more on what I said.

Does it do us any good to even speculate the condition of something which isn't even a reality? If no word successfuly describes it, because words pertain to meaning, then what is even the point in the question ''what existed before the universe''?

It's a relative point. If we talk about something before the big bang, we are talking about something outside the universe - but again, we are told that ''nothing'' exists outside the universe. So for there to be anything before the universe, there needs to be something at least we can talk about, otherwise it is pointless to even question it.

 

[friend]

Does it do us any good to even speculate the condition of something which isn't even a reality? If no word successfuly describes it, because words pertain to meaning, then what is even the point in the question ''what existed before the universe''?

Perhaps this is the same question as asking did the universe come from a singularity. For one can ask, "does a singularity actually exist?" Can a single point of space have any other properties to describe?

 

[QuantumClue]

Perhaps this is the same question as asking did the universe come from a singularity. For one can ask, "does a singularity actually exist?" Can a single point of space have any other properties to describe?

Perhaps Hawking was on the right path when he began to speculate a universe in imaginary time. Imaginary time is vertical to real time. By viewing the universe in imaginary time, you not only remove singularities, but you remove any boundaries from the universe - by removing the boundary of the universe, you cannot even talk about a beginning to the universe, which means that nothing can exist beyond our universe. So speculating what happened before the big bang truly does become pointless.

 

[czes]

Perhaps Hawking was on the right path when he began to speculate a universe in imaginary time. Imaginary time is vertical to real time. By viewing the universe in imaginary time, you not only remove singularities, but you remove any boundaries from the universe - by removing the boundary of the universe, you cannot even talk about a beginning to the universe, which means that nothing can exist beyond our universe. So speculating what happened before the big bang truly does become pointless.

I saw an interpretation to the Copenhagen Interpretation that information before the measurement (relation) does not exist. I think, it is not true due to the decoherence approach. The information may not be real in our reality but it has to exist.
May be the idea with an imaginary time is good. We can say nothing about the information before the measurement (relation, interference). It doesn't mean the information doesn't exist. It may exist in an imaginary time.
Hawking wrote the Universe was created from nothing according to gravity. I think, nothing means here information before relation. Therefore he uses the imaginary time because the real time is measured by the number of the relations. The General Relativity is derived from the gradient of the relation distribution then.

 

[QuantumClue]

I saw an interpretation to the Copenhagen Interpretation that information before the measurement (relation) does not exist. I think, it is not true due to the decoherence approach. The information may not be real in our reality but it has to exist.
May be the idea with an imaginary time is good. We can say nothing about the information before the measurement (relation, interference). It doesn't mean the information doesn't exist. It may exist in an imaginary time.
Hawking wrote the Universe was created from nothing according to gravity. I think, nothing means here information before relation. Therefore he uses the imaginary time because the real time is measured by the number of the relations. The General Relativity is derived from the gradient of the relation distribution then.

Indeed. In fact it was A. Neumaier who first mentioned this, and it really is important to consider what Copenhagen is really on about. Everything about the experiments truly states that somehow objects are smeared over space and time as probabilities, and these probabilities have [two core interpretations]. One of them it is non-physical - the world have probability waves which have no substance, no eigenstates, no tangibility until some detector comes along and disturbs the system by locating it. A simple act of measurement which can be made by the human being, or it can be conducted by simply other atomic states.

Then we have the wave function which spreads out over space as a physical entity. Some experiments may be suggesting this is the case: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...you-can-be-in-two-places-at-once-2162648.html - so let us ponder this.

1) No longer can we say objects do not exist until observation - but we can characterize certain properties by pulling them out of superpositions.

2) No longer can we state that these wave functions are ethereal. These probabilities do in fact exist physically in the world.

Now the questions of decoherence put a shroud over the Scrodingers Cat paradox. Apparently certain objects over a critical size do not exhibit quantum phenomena such as the wave function, or at least a visible one at that. Another reason why we must assume that a cat cannot be physically alive and dead at the same time is also a result of the experiment of the wafer thin metal which is only 'just visible to the human eye' - if the object was any larger, it probably would not exhibit the wave nature we were so desperately trying to observe. But this raises yet another question! If we can observe the quantum effects, would that have not pulled it out of the superpositioning? I will need to look more into it!

So does the world need the human? Did the big bang require an initial observer? Does a universe that contains nothing which is invariant under the Hamiltonian dynamics, which would mean nothing remains nothing unless something is measured?

A big fat no to the whole lot, the evidence assumes!

 

[Fra]

Isn't this getting a bit irrational?

I'd propose that whenever X raises a question, the answer is expected by X to make a difference and be feneficial to X, otherwise it's an irrational question.

The big bang/observer thing is IMO just the natural backtracing to the point where we don't expect there beeing anything around to ask any questions about anything, and that all that could possibly influence our current states evolved from there.

Questions beyond that seems to be to be as irrational as insisting that asking what colour there is on gods underwear is a good question simply beacuse it doesn't make sense for the colour to be indeterminate.

I think the extent to which speculations of big bang is interesting, is only to the extent that the lead to postdictions of our present state AND if correct, that LOGIC can then be applied to the more interesting thing; to guess the future.

Even the human brain, does not care to keep accurate records of the past. The only survival value in that, is that understanding the past, is the way to rationally come up with expectations of the future, and thus survive. IF the human mind can distort records of the past, for the benefit of the future - it does so. The FOCUS is always on the future; even when analysing the past.

My view is that that same should apply to physics.

/Fredrik

 

[QuantumClue]

Isn't this getting a bit irrational?

I'd propose that whenever X raises a question, the answer is expected by X to make a difference and be feneficial to X, otherwise it's an irrational question.

The big bang/observer thing is IMO just the natural backtracing to the point where we don't expect there beeing anything around to ask any questions about anything, and that all that could possibly influence our current states evolved from there.

Questions beyond that seems to be to be as irrational as insisting that asking what colour there is on gods underwear is a good question simply beacuse it doesn't make sense for the colour to be indeterminate.

I think the extent to which speculations of big bang is interesting, is only to the extent that the lead to postdictions of our present state AND if correct, that LOGIC can then be applied to the more interesting thing; to guess the future.

Even the human brain, does not care to keep accurate records of the past. The only survival value in that, is that understanding the past, is the way to rationally come up with expectations of the future, and thus survive. IF the human mind can distort records of the past, for the benefit of the future - it does so. The FOCUS is always on the future; even when analysing the past.

My view is that that same should apply to physics.

/Fredrik

I don't believe it is irrational to talk or question the subjects in which the posters here have drawn. I think it is very logical to assume a true interpretation of physics without worrying about a plethora of interpretations. If we have evidence to point to a more constructive theory of quantum mechanics, then why not seize the moment!

 

[czes]

Indeed. Then we have the wave function which spreads out over space as a physical entity. Some experiments may be suggesting this is the case: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...you-can-be-in-two-places-at-once-2162648.html - so let us ponder this.

Thank you for this link. It is similar to earlier experiments showing the quantum entanglement and non-locality.
It reminds me a question of microstates of the ultracold neutrons in experiment:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5414
It suggests that slowly neutron can create together with a gravitational field of the Earth a quantum microstate which is billion times larger than its Compton wave, if I good understand it.

 

[Fra]

Everything about the experiments truly states that somehow objects are smeared over space and time as probabilities

Rather than picturing a physical realistic smeared over SPACE. I prefer to think that information is distributed/propagates to all local observers in the environment. The relation between the observers encodes the space structure.

Then the noninformativeness of remote observers simply ensures locality. So it's not necessarily that "things don't exist before measurement in the objective sense", but it seems rational to think that the observers action is independent on unknown things, but this is a good thing. It ensures locality.

Thus one can explain the experimental support of "beeing at two places at once" like this:

The local envirionment interacting with the system "beeing in superposition" are acting in consistency with this expectation; thus preserving the state, givein it stability. Compare this with the stock market. How come it's stable that the market value of a stock is 100 times the fundamental value? - it's because EVERYONE in the local neighbourhood has the same expectation (acheiving that state though, is part of PREPARATION of the experiment). This is why superposition of larger objects have short lifetime, and are unstable natural conditions.

The collapse of a superposition is then propagate throughout the environment, but this of course is still a physical process, limited by the maximum communication speed etc. So any prepared unstable state, would need a certain timescale to destabilise relative to a given observing position.

Wether it's an instant collapse, or a decoherence with given time just depens on the observational perspective(ie the observer).

/Fredrik

 

[QuantumClue]

Rather than picturing a physical realistic smeared over SPACE. I prefer to think that information is distributed/propagates to all local observers in the environment. The relation between the observers encodes the space structure.

Then the noninformativeness of remote observers simply ensures locality. So it's not necessarily that "things don't exist before measurement in the objective sense", but it seems rational to think that the observers action is independent on unknown things, but this is a good thing. It ensures locality.

Thus one can explain the experimental support of "beeing at two places at once" like this:

The local envirionment interacting with the system "beeing in superposition" are acting in consistency with this expectation; thus preserving the state, givein it stability. Compare this with the stock market. How come it's stable that the market value of a stock is 100 times the fundamental value? - it's because EVERYONE in the local neighbourhood has the same expectation (acheiving that state though, is part of PREPARATION of the experiment). This is why superposition of larger objects have short lifetime, and are unstable natural conditions.

The collapse of a superposition is then propagate throughout the environment, but this of course is still a physical process, limited by the maximum communication speed etc. So any prepared unstable state, would need a certain timescale to destabilise relative to a given observing position.

Wether it's an instant collapse, or a decoherence with given time just depens on the observational perspective(ie the observer).

/Fredrik

It's better to see you contribute like this than critize any rationale.

There could be much said here - but for now, I will leave it until more posters post. I feel I have said enough.

 

[Fra]

It's better to see you contribute like this than critize any rationale.

No offense what mean by this, and it wasn't directed towards anyone in particular, merely the last part of the discussion, which seemed to blurr from my point of view.

/Fredrik

 

[QuantumClue]

No offense what mean by this, and it wasn't directed towards anyone in particular, merely the last part of the discussion, which seemed to blurr from my point of view.

/Fredrik

I was active in a conversation when you said the thread when bordering irrationality...

 

[Fra]

I was active in a conversation when you said the thread when bordering irrationality...

What I meant with "irrational" is what I wrote in the same post; it mainly served to defend the observer perspective that seems necessary by science.

To discuss what is or isn't unless it makes a difference seems strange at best. I am not able to follow such discussions.

IMHO, the observations does make a different to the observer. If there is no oberver, what are we talking about? I just loose track.

To get back on track: You mentioned a better quantum theory; I certainly also think QM needs revision, the question is more in which direction to look. What's your picture here?

/Fredrik

 

[QuantumClue]

What I meant with "irrational" is what I wrote in the same post; it mainly served to defend the observer perspective that seems necessary by science.

To discuss what is or isn't unless it makes a difference seems strange at best. I am not able to follow such discussions.

IMHO, the observations does make a different to the observer. If there is no oberver, what are we talking about? I just loose track.

To get back on track: You mentioned a better quantum theory; I certainly also think QM needs revision, the question is more in which direction to look. What's your picture here?

/Fredrik

Well I will need to stop you right there. If you read back on the material, you will find I was not advocating for the preservation of an observer-dependancy on the universe. In fact, I argued quite the reciprocal. Let us examine some of my paragraphs to the crux of my various points.

Indeed. In fact it was A. Neumaier who first mentioned this, and it really is important to consider what Copenhagen is really on about. Everything about the experiments truly states that somehow objects are smeared over space and time as probabilities, and these probabilities have [two core interpretations]. One of them it is non-physical - the world have probability waves which have no substance, no eigenstates, no tangibility until some detector comes along and disturbs the system by locating it. A simple act of measurement which can be made by the human being, or it can be conducted by simply other atomic states.

Here I simply explain the Copenhagen way of thought. Also I mention how probabilities might be smeared over space (and I mention time before also because of the unity between physical events and change) that they could be either ethereal or physical manifestations.

Then we have the wave function which spreads out over space as a physical entity. Some experiments may be suggesting this is the case: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...e-2162648.html - so let us ponder this.

1) No longer can we say objects do not exist until observation - but we can characterize certain properties by pulling them out of superpositions.

2) No longer can we state that these wave functions are ethereal. These probabilities do in fact exist physically in the world.

The article I linked to suggests that it is physical, which is actually the first blow to Copenhagen simply because:

So does the world need the human? Did the big bang require an initial observer? Does a universe that contains nothing which is invariant under the Hamiltonian dynamics, which would mean nothing remains nothing unless something is measured?

If probabilities do not exist physically then Copenhagen is not correct in saying that things are not real until they are observed... This has already been proven in a separate experiment which just came to mind: http://www.economist.com/node/13226725?story_id=13226725 - so I don't understand how you could think the discussion was in defense of the human observer. As I stated, it seems that reality can quite easily exist, and have real observable effects without the special aid of any human observer. Afterall, the universe has existed long before any humans arrived on the scene.

However I will now note there is a loophole. It is possible that our universe works by a top-bottom model, meaning that the universe is not created specifically from past to future, but rather the future is shaping the past, according to the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics. If we add to the intelligence in the future sphere, then perhaps there is some kind of meaning to our existences, one which is actually unique in shaping the universe. Perhaps our measurements today is making a highly defined present, and this is the future to an otherwise, undefined past... Hawking believed in something similar, including many other scientists.

Personally I don't like to speculate on models which put to much emphasis on either side. I think the past and future are simultaneously as important as each other.

 

[czes]

After Alain Aspect's experiment with laser the quantum non-locality becomes real phenomenon. Many new interpretations appeared then, mostly deterministic or quasi deterministic like Transactional Interpretation for example. There is past and also a future allready.
The modern approach to the Big Bang shows us that our Universe expanses because it absorbs existing information beyond the Event Horizon (space recession). Therefore average density decreases due to Holographic Principle.
The information beyond our Event Horizon exists though we do not observe it.
The future is just a place on the already existing Information Background where we are going. If someone is there it would be his present.
Actualy our Information Background is changing because of the absorption of the information from beyond the Event Horizon. May be if our "observable Universe" were closed, we may move toward the future and past if we control the entropy ?
May be it is to much speculation.

 

[Fra]

Thanks for your further elaboration.

Well I will need to stop you right there. If you read back on the material, you will find I was not advocating for the preservation of an observer-dependancy on the universe. In fact, I argued quite the reciprocal

Yes and that's what I thought. And I did defend the observer perspective.

I'll respond more later and address what you wrote part by part, and explain what I mean... there are some distinctions that makes the entire difference. Because I may agree with part of what you say.

more later

/Fredrik

 

[QuantumClue]

Thanks for your further elaboration.



Yes and that's what I thought. And I did defend the observer perspective.

I'll respond more later and address what you wrote part by part, and explain what I mean... there are some distinctions that makes the entire difference. Because I may agree with part of what you say.

more later

/Fredrik

I don't know if you will agree at all. See I believe the universe is human-observer-independant.

 

[Fra]

I believe the universe is human-observer-independant.

Me too, but observer \neq human.

I'll try to make the distinction later.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

It seems to me that your views of how people think of the observers roles are not how I see them, so first some notes on what you wrote...

No longer can we say objects do not exist until observation

I defend the observer view but would not accept this statement.

Btw - what objects? the whole point of science and physics is to try to describe and utilise nature. Until we know, all our environment is simply a black box. So I ask again in this light, what objects are you talking about?

Lacking evidence of a certain proposition beeing true, doesn't men it's false.

Without evidence, the observer does not deny possibilities, but without evidence the rational action of the obsever is independent of it. Nothing in your examples or links below contradicts this. On the contrary this ensures locality.

So I demand that whatever you call objects, must be inferred strictly in terms of interaction properties of the black box.

2) No longer can we state that these wave functions are ethereal. These probabilities do in fact exist physically in the world. [/b]

I never had the view that they are ethereal. They are however not like physical substances.

The information, implicit in the state vector, is in CI encoded in the ENVIRONMENT or the state of the measurement device. This is very real. There is nothing ethereal about this IMHO.

Here a holographic situation appears; as I see it the "statevector of system A; relative system B" is NOT a physical property of system A, but a physical property of system B. But of course the physical property of B, is the result of the interaction history with A (or preparation of experiment), so it's a kidn of relation of almost holographic nature.

The article I linked to suggests that it is physical, which is actually the first blow to Copenhagen simply because:
...
If probabilities do not exist physically then Copenhagen is not correct in saying that things are not real until they are observed...

First, I'm not defending classical CI. This is obviously incomplete as it presumes a classical observer.

I'm defening the observer perspective (the heart of CI) but dropping the classical observer.

That link I does't blow anything as I see it.

As I stated, it seems that reality can quite easily exist, and have real observable effects without the special aid of any human observer. Afterall, the universe has existed long before any humans arrived on the scene.

An observer means any system encoding an information state, and that interacts. It hasnothing to do with humans.

No sensible physicist would claim that thus has anything to do with humans. I've started to think it's an distorted description made on purpose by people who don't like the observer perspective.

In CI the actual observer is the measurement device. The process whereby another classical system (a human or a tape recorder) simply copies the classical state of the indicator on the measuremnet devices is clearly trivial.

It contains no interesting physics. So it should be without doubt that the operator in the lab has nothing to do in this analysis.

I just think it's irrational to talk about "observable effects" without acknowledge the central role of an observer. (again, no need to confused this with the human operator of a lab).

I'm not sure if your objection is to the HUMAN observer specifically, or just OBSERVING system generally?

Btw, it's not possible to make an observation without distoring the system. The so called weak measurements are nevertheless a measurement. An observation is synonmous with interaction, which again means to note how the systems RESPONDS to perturbation. The weakly coupled measurements may be realized in various ways but there is no way to escape this. Weakly coupled situations can also be realized with extended interaciton times, so that the systems equilibrates with a local environment which is then probed, for minimal coupling of original system. But there is obviously still a coupling nevertheless, and the longer chain in between the larger is the probability of distorting the original information, making it less reliable.

/Fredrik

 

[QuantumClue]

I have so much I want to say, but I am pressed for time.

I will answer this part for now:

''I defend the observer view but would not accept this statement.''

Think of the alternative. Are we to believe that since no one was present during the creation of the universe, that it did not exist? For a great part in the initial moments of big bang leading to inflation, many particles never observed each other until inflation finished.

 

[Fra]

Are we to believe that since no one was present during the creation of the universe, that it did not exist? For a great part in the initial moments of big bang leading to inflation, many particles never observed each other until inflation finished.

In my view, the big bang IS the creation of the first proto-obserers, which then evolved on from that point, possibly leaving remnants even today.

About inflation, now it becomes speculative as there is te my knowledge no detailed satisfactory understanding of the mechanism behind this.

But the expectations on inflation, purely based on the observer view is that it corresponds to the inflation of an abstract event space, which means that the dominating process from the point of view of the desicion process of the inside observers, observing each other is just expanding the contact surface to the environment at the expensve of evolving complex internal structure. Thus the first thing to emerge is then some original form of area, once these observer grains become large enough it would become untenable to not evolve internal structure. As internal structure starts to emerge that can adapt some of the interactions and then inflation of the statespae would slow down.

So I think that there are definitely interactions during inflation. The grossly incomplete understanding of that event, and the emergence of space, selection of 4D structure etc gives us no IMHO reason to jump into conclusions about expansion speeds. IMO, the interactions would be a critical key to understand the mechanisms of inflation.

Inflation of spacetime is in my view dual to inflation of the complexity of observers. What these first protoobservers exactly ARE though, I do not konw, that is a much harder question. But presumaly some below Plancksize aggregate of complexions whose interactions together explain the emergence and inflation of 4D space as we know it.

The above isn't supposed to be a serious explanation of anything, the only purpose is serves is to add some reflections to show that I see no contraditions whatsoever in maintaining thte observers perspective into the big bang. These "proto-observers" has then evolve on until today, and they where the seeding structures of the world we see today; this is the way that are "observable" in the postdictive sense; but the real value of postditctions isn't to konw what really happened in the past, it's a test of the inference idea, that if working on history, may work for the future as well. That's IMO the "utility" of this.

Edit: In fact if you see if from the inference perspective, inflation simply means that observers just absorb information about the environment WITHOUT responding. In this sense it's not much of an interaction, it's rather like a one-way communication; this is what in my abstraction view inflates space. To me this in fact appears very plausible. Compare to the very EARLY part of a learning process, then you do not REACT back yo SIMPLY observer, note and store... only after you have acquired a certain critical complexity does it make sense to start producing your own actions. This is a totally new, but possibly useful way to see inflation.

/Fredrik

 

[czes]

Me too, but observer \neq human.

I'll try to make the distinction later.

/Fredrik

Yes. It is very important to clarify it. I also use the word "observer" but I think a "relation" between information.
Someone on this thread wrote that information is just a relation between information and we need a frame of reference to see the information.
The information alone is non-local, timeless and weightless.

May be we have to distinguish an information alone and the visible information relation.
There is also wave function which is used as its squared magnitude or virtual particle-antiparticle in the Vacuum which is always a pair.

May be the Big Bang started with the relation between the information and the Event Horizon appears then ?

 

[Fra]

Yes. It is very important to clarify it. I also use the word "observer" but I think a "relation" between information.
Someone on this thread wrote that information is just a relation between information and we need a frame of reference to see the information.
The information alone is non-local, timeless and weightless.

I really like how Wojciech Zurek put it in one paper

"What the observer KNOWS, is indistinguishable from what the observer IS"

I think that is a really good way to put it. This means that the observer has no existence independent of what it knows (what information about it's own environment) it encodes.

This of course also means that a STABLE observer, is also in relation to it's environment in a sort of holographic sense, BUT in my picture this corresponds to equilibrium (referring to that the observer is stable). But I think that even close to equilibrium, the lack of perfect agreement is what is responsible for the flow of time. This is why the holographic connection for me isn't a starting point.

I'd choose to say that information is local beause the only way to measure inforamtion is with respect to other ifnormation, therefor locality is emergent in the space of information states, where each information state or observer is local to it's own information.

So observes that are in disagreement, is always somewhat "remote" by construction. This mean that there could be a "distance" between two internal states that even exists at the same 3D space point. You have something remotely like that in string theory in the compactified spaces... but I'm envisioning a compeltely different construction, more like verlindes entropic view.

/Fredrik

 

[czes]

One has to abandon at least the notion of naïve realism that particles have certain properties that are independent of any observation. Anton Zeilinger - Legett inequality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leggett–Garg_inequality

Our real Universe exist according to relation.
Is a not related alone information something or nothing then ?

 

[QuantumClue]

One has to abandon at least the notion of naïve realism that particles have certain properties that are independent of any observation. Anton Zeilinger - Legett inequality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leggett–Garg_inequality

Our real Universe exist according to relation.
Is a not related alone information something or nothing then ?

The human is an observer. The equation human \ne observer is not correct.

The human must observe, or what is it that we see? The human mind may not be viewing the world directly... it is afterall just a complex series of electrical signals moving through the nervous system and then interpreted by the brain. But we do view this bubble of perception, so it is not correct to say the human is not an observer.

But particles almost surely exhibit properties which are independant of the human observer. It formed the universe from the radiation era, and formed the very ground we stand on today, very independant of the human observer.

 

[czes]

The human is an observer. The equation human \ne observer is not correct.

The human must observe, or what is it that we see? The human mind may not be viewing the world directly... it is afterall just a complex series of electrical signals moving through the nervous system and then interpreted by the brain. But we do view this bubble of perception, so it is not correct to say the human is not an observer.

But particles almost surely exhibit properties which are independant of the human observer. It formed the universe from the radiation era, and formed the very ground we stand on today, very independant of the human observer.

I have to clarify my words. Observation means for me the relation not by the human mind. The matter exist when it is in a relation to another matter. A photon before measurement, observation, relation may have vertical and horisontal polarisation. The observation shows the information.
Here is my question - if the information or particle is not in a relation to another information is it something or nothing then ?

 

[Fra]

Of course, all humans are qualified observers. We can agree there.
But not all observers are humans! (this was the important part) :)

And then I'm not talking about other animals, I mean that for example the nucleus of an atom, can "observer" electrons. etc.

ALOT of physicists that advocate the observerperspectve, are not using the word "observer" as synonym with human. It means an "observing system", generally a measurement device, or just any subsystems of the universe.

The general sense of observation is "interaction or query". Two systems are "observing each other" when they are interacting.

So when I say I think the state vector encodes the state of the observer, I am definitely NOT suggesting that it's in the state of the MIND of the observer. It's a PHYSICAL state of the observing system.

Of course, even the brain IS a physical state, so the analogy partly applies, but the major point is that all humans are observers, but not all observers are humans.

Do you agree with something here still?

/Fredrik