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