The wooden stake in the heart of The Demon, the silver bullet is "resetting the computer" or really erasing in a classical irreversible "making of the record" (Wheeler) when the Fat Lady sings and the crystal shatters. This always increases the total entropy volume in phase space in accord with the Second Law for a closed system. In the case of the Demon he has to repeat his choices to open or not open his trap door based on information he has processed using some kind of sensor. The sensor must be reset for the next measurement. The Lochschmidt paradox et-al is solved by retro-causation back to pre-Big Bang inflation cosmic trigger "transactional handshake" (John Cramer) between Alpha and Omega.
On Jul 15, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
We are such dreams that stuff is made from. (My paraphrase twist of Shakespeare)
The recent AAAS USD had a session on the issues surrounding "Maxwell's Demon". Marlan Scully just wrote a new book about it and "the quantum eraser." The Joker in the Deck is retro-causal backwards through time advanced causes - actually needed to set the Arrow of Time, i.e. low entropy of early universe so that Arrow of Time is in same direction as the expansion of the universe. See Roger Penrose "Road to Reality" on "inflation." What is "inside-outside", i.e. light cone barriers & horizons in a multiverse? That assumes signal locality also recently called again into question by John Cramer at AAAS USD and others.
On Jul 15, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Pantheon wrote:
To conclude, endophysics is the study of demons. Maxwell's demons do not
work - they are each blocked by a censor. Further demons and their
corresponding censors will have to be uncovered. Understanding
incompleteness is worth more than completeness - almost.
Anna
Endophysics - Physics from Within Otto E. Rössler Der Rössler Attraktor A
new science, Endophysics, is introduced. Only if one is outside of a
nontrivial universe is a complete description of the latter possible - as
when you have it in your computer, for example. The laws that apply when you
are an inside part are in general different (endophysics is different from
exophysics). Gödel's proof is the first example, in mathematics. In physics,
it is desirable to have explicit observers included in the model world.
Brain models are a case in point. Macroscopic brain models, however, are
non-explicit in general. Therefore, an explicit microscopic universe is
introduced in terms of a formally one-dimensional Hamiltonian, in which
"formal brains" can arise as explicit dissipative structures in the sense of
Prigogine. The pertinent endophysics is still largely unknown. As a first
step, the implications of having the observer contain indistinguishable
particles (Gibbs symmetry) are considered. Campbell's postulate - a
microvacillation of time's axis - is an implication, with Nelson's postulate
and hence the Schrödinger equation following as corollaries. Thus a
"nonlocal" internal interface is implied by a local theory. Microscopic
observer properties can "percolate up" to affect the macroscopic
spatio-temporal appearance of the model world. Physics becomes dependent on
brain theory. Endophysics has so far been largely confined to science
fiction. The best example to date is probably Simulocron Three by Galouye
[1], which for some reason was not included in Hofstadter and Dennett's
anthology on computer-cognition relevant fiction [2]. Galouye lets a whole
world be simulated in a computer. The operator is able to look at this world
through the eyes of the "ID units" - the poor inhabitants of the world. One
inhabitant, code numbered ZNO (Zeno), unfortunately has to be unprogrammed
because he gets suspicious and is about to infect the rest of the community.
Only later does the evidence accumulate, to his creator, that he, too - but
perhaps you wish to read the story for yourself. (Eventually, the two
lovers, from different levels, come to live happily ever after, since, after
all, there is no basic difference between two subroutines that formally
belong to two different levels of nesting.) Shortly after Gödel [3] had
given his famous proof about the incompleteness (from the inside) of
arithmetic, his close friend von Neumann [4] began to ponder the question of
whether or not quantum mechanics might represent an analogous limitation -
within a physical rather than mathematical context. Fortunately, von Neumann
was able to prove that if quantum mechanics is accepted as the most basic
physical theory, which contains all possible others as special cases, then
there is no need to worry. The structure of quantum mechanics happens to be
such that "the state of information of the observer regarding his own state"
cancels out from the formalism [5]. That such a type of result is
particularly likely to kindle suspicion in certain vulnerable individuals
did not occur to von Neumann, since he could not possibly have read Galouye.
About half a century before, a similar physical nightmare had already
haunted Maxwell [5] (and apparently Lohschmidt before him, according to
Boltzmann [6]). Maxwell conjectured that there might in general exist two
types of physical law. An example of the first kind would be Newton's law
when applied to celestial bodies - it would make no difference whether or
not you sat on one of the bodies. An example of the second kind would be
Newton's (or Hamilton's) law again, but applied to the many microscopic
bodies whose mechanical interactions supposedly underlie thermo-dynamics.
Being confined to the same world here could make a significant difference.
Unexpectedly, this point of Maxwell's, which was made implicitly, went
unnoticed. The two famous proofs [7,8] that the demon cannot work (opening
and shutting a little trapdoor of near-zero mass at the right moments), both
do no more than show that the demon, if it is a sub-system, cannot do its
job with a net gain, in case it has to go about hunting for information. The
fact that a much simpler mechanism suffices (an asymmetric trapdoor of
near-zero mass needs only to be cooled regularly -i.e. an infinitesimal
amount of kinetic energy must be removed - to generate the same effect
automatically [9]) was overlooked. This oversight is nevertheless minor
since operating a near-perfect cooling machine, for a single particle,
presumably requires the same investment of free energy once more, from a
subsystem. But what is the situation for a non-subsystem? Indeed, when
sitting at the keyboard of a higher-level computer in which a Hamiltonian
universe is being simulated, doing either magic trick (adjusting the tenth
digit of a particular particle's position at strategic points in time, or
keeping a particular particle cool automatically) will prove equally
feasible. Thus, the second law is endophysical in nature. Maxwell was right
with his suspicion. So was Smoluchowski [10] some time later with his
debugged version of the demon. He proposed that you try being a demon
yourself: just buy one of those modern infrared-sensitive night glasses. In
addition you need a bowl of water, a dark room, an ordinary spoon, and two
thermos bottles, one red and one blue. Then just wait and sample, with the
spoon. Since your eventual success will be the first anyhow, you need not
worry about the magnitude of the effect. Any consistent effect that you are
able to produce without a fancy lab (10 -10 degree) will be fine.
Smoluchowski realized that if you are sure that this tamed (macroscopic)
version of the demon will be censored too, you as a corollary have to
believe in the existence of (from the macroscopic point of view) counter
intuitive nonlocal macroscopic correlations. As he died the same year he
made his proposal, he was not able to tell which outcome he would abhor
more. This story (even if slightly dramatized) is exceedingly hard to tell
since everyone tends to get the punch line wrong. Again, you need Galouye to
point out clearly where you think the answer lies.
Next comes Ehrenfest's demon - Einstein. In a letter [11], Ehrenfest
compared Einstein - in his indefatigable attempts to find a loophole in the
consistency of quantum mechanics (in his exchanges with Bohr in the
Ehrenfests' home) to a little Jack-in-the-box who wants to play Maxwell's
demon against the quantum law. Indeed, in more recent times the quantum
nonlocality [12] has taken on a similar status to Smoluchowski's earlier
proposal. Two further important names in the history of endophysics are
Popper [13] and Finkelstein [14]. Popper talked Einstein into accepting his
proof [13] that complete self-observation is impossible in (continuous)
physics, and into believing with him that one should try to find a
Gödel-type formulation of quantum mechanics [13]. Finkelstein [14] set up a
program for a "holistic physics" in the spirit of the late Bohr, but
discrete. He hypothetically attributed both the quantum limit and the
relativistic limit to the fact that the whole is not available to us. Later,
he gave an explicit example of a finite-state machine (computer) whose
internally evaluated state is different from that existing objectively [15].
Still later he endorsed the two notions "physics from without" and "physics
from within" [16] by coining the technical terms [17] used in this chapter.
The name "endophysics" is his creation. In the same year, Fredkin [18]
described the first explicit, computer calculable model universe as a
reversible-type cellular automation. (Earlier cellular-automata "worlds"
like Conway's game life [119] had all been irreversible.) This universe
consists solely of information. Once you assume it exists, implemented in
whatever kind of hardware you may think of, its properties are fixed. It
starts producing "material" properties of its own inside - like assemblies
of black pixels that mutually attract each other with a definitive force law
like Coulomb's. The hope is that, eventually, all laws of nature as we know
them might come out as an implication. You only have to hit - by
happenstance - upon the right reversible local rule. The number of such laws
to be checked empirically is unknown. Possible counter arguments invoking
the existence of nonlocal phenomena in quantum mechanics are answered with
the argument that nonlocal correlations over large distances have been
abundantly observed in real-time computer runs [18]. The dichotomy between
exophysics and endophysics is hereby invoked. The only major problem with
this explicit model world is that, so far, no dissipative macroscopic
processes can be simulated since even a single "elementary particle" uses up
hundreds of variables. Irreversible "observers" cannot yet be included. This
computer world therefore still belongs to the first or "general" phase of
endophysics. Here, general limitations that invariably show up from the
inside are sought. Gödel provided the paradigm and Maxwell the first
potential physical example. In contrast, the second or "special" phase of
endophysics will be brain theoretical. Assumptions that are not completely
general and that enter into the properties of explicit observers ("brains")
arising in the explicit model world will be admitted into consideration.
This makes the connection to Galouye's (and Lem's [2]) science fiction even
closer. Interestingly, the first potentially conscious computer program was
developed by Kosslyn and Shwartz [20] (cf. also ref. 21 for a related but
more complete blueprint). Like its forerunners - of fiction status
presumably - it is non-reversible. All such models have yet to be embedded
into a more minimal (reversible) universe. On the other hand, a concrete
example of a microscopically specified world that "goes all the way up" to
include macroscopically subsystems such as observers has so far been
lacking. A specific world of this type is considered in the following.
Discussion Endophysics is still in its infancy. A single explicit model
universe that reaches through all levels from the microscopic to the
macroscopic is available so far. A general endophysical question worth
considering in detail is the second law with all its ramifications. Other
questions of the same standing have yet to be identified. In the realm of
special endophysics (including brains), most questions have also yet to be
formulated. There may be other "general" special axioms to consider besides
that of observer-internal particle indistinguishability. Even though
indistinguishability may turn out to be but a minor determinant of an
observer-centered future endophysics, focusing on it at the beginning may
turn out to have been a lucky accident. It helped show that simply putting a
reversible universe into a computer and running it exophysically is not
sufficient to uncover its endophysics. In addition, hints at the possible
existence of endophysical properties even where there are no exophysical
correlates, are needed. The Gibbs symmetry simply does not exist
exophysically. In a similar vein, both quasi periodization and
microvacillation could easily have been overlooked were it not for certain
counter intuitive theoretical proposals already present in the literature.
Particle indistinguishability has the further asset that it is a "maximally
simple" property. Symmetries and reduced representations are staples of any
physical theory. Trajectorial multiuniqueness, nevertheless, is fairly
nontrivial conceptually. To the present author, for example, it is still not
clear to what extent one may trust a symmetry argument. For more on the
history of this problem, one can go right back to Leibniz. A more general
endophysical problem worth discussing is the consistency question. Can any
endophysics be consistent? To what extent is "internal consistency" assured
for its inhabitants? Specifically, can internal interfaces be consistent?
How far can their consistency go, maximally? Are only single measurements
covered (direct consistency), or are derived general laws included (indirect
consistency)? What about "metaconsistency": a meta-consistent world would be
one in which it is impossible even to embark on an endophysical program.
These questions may all be studied explicitly using the present model
universe (with the r.t plane forming the main tool). It is also possible to
study the question of "consistent interaction" between two observers -with a
single observer who relies on his own earlier notes forming the simplest
case. The nontrivial nature of the latter problem was first seen, in real
physics, by Bell. The central endophysical idea of metaunmaskability goes
back to Descartes. He introduced the fairness question (in French). Can a
"mauvaise plaisanterie" (a bad joke) be excluded, from the inside? Both
Einstein and Bohr concurred with him that a physics whose consistency was
not great enough to permit at least a glimpse at the reasons for our own
limitations would be a "bad dream". In the present context, Cartesian
fairness assumes a different ring. Simulating a Hamiltonian world in a
computer having finite precision is bound to destroy many "subtle"
conservation laws. Subtle conservation laws would be those that preserve the
consistency of internal interfaces. The second law, for example, is subtle
since it can be violated by "late digits" (cf. ref. 9). Even more subtle
would be a macroscopically consistent world that nevertheless is nonlocal
microscopically. Two mutally incompatible macroscopic worlds could then
coexist, in harmony, in the same microscopic world (exophysics). Only if
such a level of accuracy is guaranteed can the inhabitants embark on an
endophysical path. Therefore, a reversible integration routine will be
required in the long run. Its use will amount to putting a discrete
"lowest-level universe" underneath the present one. Like Fredkin's universe
[18], the latter ought to be "embeddable" again into a continuous
Hamiltonian.
To conclude, endophysics is the study of demons. Maxwell's demons do not
work - they are each blocked by a censor. Further demons and their
corresponding censors will have to be uncovered. Understanding
incompleteness is worth more than completeness - almost. Literatur: 1. D.F.
Galouye, "Simulacron Drei". Heyne Verlag, München 1965. (Englisches Original
1964.) 2. D.R. Hofstadter und D.C. Dennett, The Mind's I", BasicBooks, New
York l 981. (Deutsch "Einsicht ins Ich", Klett-Cotta, München 1992.) 3. K.
Gödel, Über formal ununterscheidbare Sätze der Principia mathematica und
verwandter Systeme 1, Monatshefte f. Math. u. Physik 38, 173-198 (1932). 4.
J. von Neumann, "Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik".
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1932, 1981, S. 233. 5. J.C. Maxwell, "Theory of
Heat", Appleton, New York 1872, S. 308. (Nachdruck: AMS Press, New York 19
72.) 6. L. Boltzmann, In Memoriam Josef Loschmidt. In: "Populäre Schriften",
Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig 1905, S. 150-159. 7. L. Szilard, Über die
Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System bei Eingriffen
intelligenter Wesen, Z. f. Physik 53,840-856 (1929). 8. L. Brioullin,
Maxwell's demon cannot operate: Information and entropy 1, J. Appl. Phys.
22, 334-337(1951). 9. O.E. Rössler, Macroscopic behavior in a simple chaotic
Hamiltonian system, Lecture Notes in Physics, 179, 67-77 (1983). 10. M. von
Smoluchowski, Experimentell nachweisbare, der üblichen Thermodynamik
widersprechende Molekularphänomene, Physik. Z. 13, 1068-1080 (1912); siehe
auch: Physik. Z. 17, 557, 585 (1916). 11. P. Ehrenfest, Brief an Samuel
Goudsmit, George Uhlenbeck und Gerhard Dieke, November 1927. In: "Niels
Bohr" (K. von Meyenn, K. Stolzenberg und R.U. Sexl, Hrsg.), S. 152-155,
Vieweg, Braunschweig 1985, S. 152. 12. J.S. Bell, On the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Physics 1, 195-200 (1964). 13. K.R. Popper,
Indeterminism in classical physics and quantum physics 1, Brit. J. Philos.
Sci. 1, 117-133 (1951), S. 129. Siehe auch: Autobiography of Karl Popper.
In: "The Philosophy of Karl Popper" (P: A: Schilpp, Hrsg.), Bd. 1, S. 3-181.
Open Court, La Salle, Ill., 1974, S.1021. 14. D. Finkelstein, Holistic
methods in quantum logic. In: Quantum Theory and the Structures of Time and
Space", Bd. 3 (L. Castell, M. Drieschner und C.F. von Weizsäcker, Hrsg.), S.
37-60. Carl Hanser, München 1979. 15. D. Finkelstein und S.R. Finkelstein,
Computer interactivity simulates quantum complementarity, Int. J. Theor.
Phys. 22, 753-779 (1983). 16. O.E. Rössler, Chaos and chemistry. In:
"Nonlinear Phenomena in Chemical Dynamics" (C. Vidal und A. Pacault, Hrsq.),
S. 79-87. Springer Verlag, New York 1981. 17. D. Finkelstein, Brief vom 23.
Juni 1983. (Kapitel "Namensgebung" dieses Buches.) 18. E. Fredkin, Digital
information mechanics, Preprint 1983; Digital mechanics, Physica D 45,
254-270 (1990).
19. M. Gardner, "Wheels, Life and Other Mathematical Amusements". Freeman,
San Francisco 1983. 20. S.M. Kosslyn und S.P. Schwarz, A simulation of
visual imagery, Cognitive Sci. 1, 267-295 (1977). 21. O.E. Rössler, An
artificial cognitive map system, BioSystems 13, 203-209 (1981).
http://www.aec.at/en/archiv_files/19921/E1992_049.pdf#search='endophysics'
Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Re: We are The Dream ...
At the end of the 80s I translated some of the Winnebago Hero Cycles into
German, namely the Redhorn- and the Twin-cycle (where Poland seems to got
stuck now *hehe*). Those cycles - also the preceding Trickster- and
Hare-Cycle - deal with the transformation of the earth, and the according
types of shamans (or vice verse?). At the end of the Redhorn-Cycle all those
big shamans, shape-shifters or transformers, like Turtle and Wolf, among
many others, could not keep their human forms any longer and cutted down
into their animal forms. First the classical logic of the Twin-Cycle allowed
scientific questioning, and thus medicine and technolgy - but ideology as
well. This was the price we had to pay for scientific knowledge.... But now
we are entering the 5th Cycle...
Ciao,
Rabea
dr.rabea.uchtmann@semiotik.net schrieb:
Pantheon schrieb:
Hi grandma... who knows if this was just a typing error and not
SOMETHING MORE! Actually, you look very noble now. I would only
suggest more lipstick. Love,
Anna
*Hehe*,
I felt more like Little Red Riding Hood, but with the exception that I
would have turned into the wolf myself at last...:-) I just started to
ask myself: grandma, why those big ears etc.? Where does this
unimaginable smell come from? Etc.pp.
Some modifications and some lipstick will cure all that I think...
I just learned that not Roessler coined the term "endophysics", but it
was David Ritz Finkelstein in a letter to him, to give Roessler*s
matter a name then.
Meanwhile I know both of them personally since the Lucerne conference
in 2003. I based a lot of my work on Roessler*s findings, and also
support Finkelstein*s narrative approach that is also close to what I
tried to do with "semiotics".
I think that consciousness/sign process is a certain type of local
macro quantum vacuum, that I call "sign locality". There is no means
to measure that from a signal local perspective that only can declare
"signal nonlocality" here.
Ciao,
Rabea
*Subject:* Re: [4DWorldx] Re: We are The Dream ...
Pantheon schrieb:
Don't ask me, ask a physicist. However endPPhysics sound like a piss
physics for kids .(;- Anna
Hi stupid :-),
typing error, or? May happen...
"Endophysics", you know? As far as I know the term was coined by
Otto Roessler.
Ciao,
Rabea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_R%C3%B6ssler
-----Original Message-----
From: dr.rabea.uchtmann@semiotik.net
[mailto:dr.rabea.uchtmann@semiotik.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 3:52 AM
To: 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Re: We are The Dream ...
Pantheon schrieb:
I think if we propose that Vacuum Plenum is the same as the Void, it
would be easier to understand the concept. However, we also need
negative dimension for Consciousness, and this requires seeing Mind as
a hole ( negative dimensionality) filled with virtual memories.
Perhaps it is time for paraphysics? Anna
Why not "endophysics" (or: physics of consciousness) after all? We
don*t need new backworlds. Self-Consciousness = Sign Process, ergo
"sign locality". Perhaps the the recognition of 2-D-Flat-Spaces as
virtual 3-D-Realities could be a "measuring instrument" for sign
processes (="consciousness"). Which "animals" have the potential to
move in such "spaces"? At what stage of evolution do "sign processes"
start? I my scientific work I was as never so much interested in that
subject-object-thing, but in "mediality". Now I would interpret
mediality as the degree of sign locality.
Ciao,
Rabea
It is altogether useless to introduce void to a physicist.
Theoretically one requires the theory of mathematical and topological
dimensionality to see that negative dimensionality is an
unavoidable consequence.
Next, what seems cranky, one has to consider that some
empty sets should be 'emptier' than other empty sets.
Also here, poets and artists had this idea.
Now if one agrees on degrees of emptiness, physicists should, as
Mandelbrot
proposed already in the 1980ties,
think how empty is their empty space in which 'oscillating particles'
just
happen to be not 'there' .
In terms of dimensionality, the quantum vacuum oscillates between the
empty
dimensionality -1 and the particle ( as a point )
dimensionality 0. With no values in between.
The idea of structure continuously 'smears' over the forbidden zone.
Insofar
Mandelbrot is perfectly correct
terming the negative dimensionality of void as a window to a
generating process. But to physicists, the notion of structure is
very suspicious as it is just not moving not matter. None of their
concepts matches this.
Hans Dieter
-----Original Message-----
From: 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com
On Behalf
Of Hans Dieter Franke
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:09 AM
To: 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [4DWorldx] Re: We are The Dream ...
Then the waves are only memory. Memory does not require
consciousness,
although re-cognition does. Anna
In special relativity quantum field theory the "particles" are not
localized in space. They are "plane waves" i.e. momentum eigenstates
- at least in free space ignoring boundaries. In Bohm's theory one can
think
of localized particles surfing these pilot plane quantum information
waves.
When gravity is included things get hard - no one knows how to really do
that problem as yet beyond what's called a "semi-classical
approximation" in
which the gravity curved space-time field is not quantized beyond first
order perturbation theory - which is not good enough.
On Jul 13, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Pantheon wrote:
Correct. Yet, there is space ( space does not mean ' empty ' )
between the particles separating them from each other. Thus
philosophically speaking, space is a borderline, or consciousness.
Anna
Sounds much better, Jack.
I like a bit better
We are such dreams that stuff is made from.
No comments:
Post a Comment