Introduction Throughout this book we have commented on the need to have a wider vision of physics as more than merely developing and solving equations of motion for states of systems under observation (SUOs). It is our premise that any attempt to discuss time needs to address issues such as the status of observers, apparatus, and suchlike, relative to those states of SUOs. This echoes the following quote from Wheeler: Stronger than the anthropic principle is what I might call the participatory principle. According to it we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer participancy. You wouldn't have the stuff out of which to build the universe otherwise. This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum: No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon. (Wheeler, 1979) We agree with Wheeler to this extent: there seems little, if any, point in speculating about truly unobservable parts of the Universe. If, however, there is a possibility that physical signals or effects from currently unobserved parts of the Universe might one day reach us, then that would in essence make those parts observable, albeit indirectly, and therefore suitable for theoretical analysis and speculation.
Introduction Throughout this book we have commented on the need to have a wider vision of physics as more than merely developing and solving equations of motion for states of systems under observation (SUOs). It is our premise that any attempt to discuss time needs to address issues such as the status of observers, apparatus, and suchlike, relative to those states of SUOs. This echoes the following quote from Wheeler: Stronger than the anthropic principle is what I might call the participatory principle. According to it we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer participancy. You wouldn't have the stuff out of which to build the universe otherwise. This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum: No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon. (Wheeler, 1979) We agree with Wheeler to this extent: there seems little, if any, point in speculating about truly unobservable parts of the Universe. If, however, there is a possibility that physical signals or effects from currently unobserved parts of the Universe might one day reach us, then that would in essence make those parts observable, albeit indirectly, and therefore suitable for theoretical analysis and speculation.
Aim of the book The overall aim of this book is to develop a theory of measurement that incorporates the observer into the phenomenon under measurement. By this theory, the observer becomes both a collector of data and an activator of the physical phenomenon that gives rise to the data. These ideas have probably been best stated by J. A. Wheeler (1990), (1994): All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe … Observer participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics. The measurement theory that will be presented is largely, in fact, a quantification of these ideas. However, the reader might be surprised to find that the ‘information’ that is used is not the usual Shannon or Boltzmann entropy measures, but one that is relatively unknown to physicists, that of R. A. Fisher. During the same years that quantum mechanics was being developed by Schroedinger (1926) and others, the field of classical measurement theory was being developed by R. A. Fisher (1922) and co-workers (see Fisher Box, 1978, for a personal view of his professional life). According to classical measurement theory, the quality of any measurement(s) may be specified by a form of information that has come to be called Fisher information.Since these formative years, the two fields - quantum mechanics and classical measurement theory - have enjoyed huge success in their respective domains of application. And until recent times it has been presumed that the two fields are distinct and independent.
Aims of the book The primary aim of this book is to develop a theory of measurement that incorporates the observer into the phenomenon under measurement. By this theory, the observer becomes both a collector of data and an activator of the phenomenon that gives rise to the data. These ideas have probably been best stated by J. A. Wheeler (1990; 1994): All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe … Observer participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics. The measurement theory that will be presented is largely, in fact, a quantification of these ideas. However, the reader might be surprised to find that the “information” that is used is not the usual Shannon or Boltzmann entropy measures, but one that is relatively unknown to physicists, that of R. A. Fisher. The measurement theory is simply a description of how Fisher information flows from a physical source effect to a data space. It therefore applies to all scenarios where quantitative data from repeatable experiments may be collected. This describes measurement scenarios of physics but, also, of science in general. The theory of measurement is found to define an analytical procedure for deriving all laws of science. The approach is called EPI, for “extreme physical information.” The secondary aim of the book is to show, by example, that most existing laws of science fit within the EPI framework. That is, they can be derived by its use. (Many can of course be derived by other approaches, but, apparently, no other single approach can derive all of them.) In this way the EPI approach unifies science under an umbrella of measurement and information.
Introduction First a word of thanks. When I first came across the papers of John Archibald Wheeler on the foundations of quantum mechanics, most of them reprinted in Wheeler and Zurek (1983), I could not believe what I read. Finally here was a colleague of worldwide reputation, given his many contributions to theoretical physics, who was not afraid to discuss openly the conceptual problems of quantum mechanics. The outstanding feature of Professor Wheeler's viewpoint is his realization that the implications of quantum mechanics are so far-reaching that they require a completely novel approach in our view of reality and in the way we see our role in the universe. This distinguishes him from many others who in one way or another tried to save pre-quantum viewpoints, particularly the obviously wrong notion of a reality independent of us. Particularly remarkable is Professor Wheeler's austerity in thinking. He tries to use as few concepts as possible and to build on this the whole of physics. A fascinating case in point is the title of one of his papers “Law without law,” the attempt to arrive at the laws of nature without assuming any law a priori. For me personally his work on fundamental issues in quantum mechanics has been particularly inspiring. The questions he raises are exceptionally far-reaching and some of his concepts in the foundations of physics are so radical that calling them revolutionary would not do them justice.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
Abstract This paper will deal specifically with the concept of extending some of the contentions and theories of John Archibald Wheeler into a more complete description of reality, supported in part by physical experiments. The subjects that will be dealt with are well known from quantum theory, and now lately - Nick Bostrom's simulation theory, but will be seen through a new reinterpretation that connects seamlessly, prior positions of Wheeler into a self-consistent model that defines the nature of the physical universe through the convergence of information universe models and the Everett/Wheeler hypothesis. Hints will be given, as to how the reported desires of so-called Silicon Valley billionaires to leave the simulated universe, can be fulfilled using on-the-horizon technology to accomplish time travel through the manipulation of the information based fabric underpinning reality. In whole, the following will be major points discussed: 1. J.A. Wheeler posited that even the greatest mathematical equation in the universe is missing something, the principle by which can become real. He also said, no phenomenon is a phenomenon until is an observed phenomenon. 2. Wheeler developed his theory of it from bit, explaining that the physical world was based upon information at a fundamental level 3. Seth Lloyd, taking that thought further, said that the universe acts like a giant computer processing the information contained therein. 4. Nick Bostrom posited that, in fact, our universe is a computer simulation created by our post-human descendants in the distant future. 5. Philip K. Dick science fiction writer and visionary, in his 1977 public statements mentioned, that due to to events in the past being reprogrammed, things in the present could be changed so that an alternate universe splits off. 6. The universe is participatory, not just with humans, but everything else. *Just as various events cause a variety of phenomena, in the extreme cases, the universe responds in the extreme by producing alternate universes. This process resolves many of the issues related to quantum phenomena, parallel universes and time travel* 7. The detection of a simulated universe and escape therefrom is similar but not the same as doing so with an information universe. Escape from a simulated universe is impossible just as its detection may be. However, in this paper, a series of experiments will be presented that for the first time ever, establish such a possible detection as well as the method of ultimate escape from our information based universe.