2/7/2019 Image: ArtKouKou by Vince Giuliano
Zoltar works by magic; IRC is how absolutely everything works.
My treatise ON BEING AND CREATION basically argues that Intention-driven Reality Creation (IRC) behaves according to well established rules of quantum mechanics (QM), and that materializing a reality by creating a deep-felt intention is similar to or may be the same as applying an operator is QM. The rules of QM referred to and discussed in that treatise are those of classical QM, mostly known for over 100 years now. They are ones I first learned when I was in graduate school in the late 1950s. But the years since then have seen at least a few major waves of advancement in QM such as Quantum Chromodynamics, Feynman diagrams, Quantum Field Theory, , and our understanding of quantum entanglement, And significant but illusive efforts to make quantum computing practicable have led to advances in Quantum information theory.
These newer areas bring along them whole new classes of theoretical and mathematical constructs. And new ways of thinking. The classical representational frameworks of classical QM like infinite-dimensional Hilbert Spaces were difficult enough to grasp. Gravity is not really a force; it is simply a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime in the presence of matter. Now we have new bunches of more sophisticated distinctions, For example, qubits, the basic units of information in quantum computing. A bit in conventional computing has one of two values, 0 or 1. A qubit is continuous-valued, describable by a direction on the Bloch sphere. You can’t make copies of qubits or destroy them; they are very wierd.
This blog entry discusses a few selected aspect of how these newer conceptual frameworks impinge on the arguments and case made in my treatise – whether the newer theories weaken or strengthen the fundamental argument pointing to the similarity or identity of QM and IRC. For example, if we looked at IRC through the perspective of quantum information theory, what might that tell us.
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE MADE OF?
The old everybody-knows answer is of course space and matter, with matter made up of tiny particles, ones with hooks back in the times of the ancient Greeks, quarks and electrons as of just a few years ago. Empty space of course contains nothing. Comforting, and still what I tell my 6-year old grandson. But wrong according to physicists who keep up with such matters. The new answer is that all space is full of quantum fields and that these are the only things that exist, 12 different ones for matter and 4 different ones for forces. Space and time themselves are a quantum field. These fields are constantly interacting and changing and may assume different values according to the laws of quantum physics. Matter, particles, are vibrations in fields; all of them. Particles are not fundamental and may only arise when you go looking for them. For all of the known fundamental particles, there is an associated quantum field. There is an electron field, a neutrino field, and quark fields, W boson fields and Z boson fields. Particles arise through interactions among quantum fields. Matter is not basic; quantum fields are. What exactly is a quantum field? Who knows. I don’t remember ever having felt, tasted, seen or smelled any if them. We can only characterize them by what they do and how they behave. And empty space? Forget it. A constant boil of ephemeral basic virtual particles which come into existence out of nothing and go back into nothingness again. There is no such thing as nothing.
As customary in these blogs, I will do my best to lay out my ideas in English without use of mathematical formulas. However, for what I am seeking to discuss, natural language offers an extremely limited representational framework, bound by verbal distinctions that cannot really do justice to what exists. If I could use the mathematical tools of QM, it is possible I might do better. However even with these I might not have a good enough vocabulary and grammar for the discussion, If we were caterpillars or mice or armadillos or goldfish that could talk, we would have no base vocabulary that would allow us to start discussing trains, electricity, urban economics and TV, let alone black holes, relativity theory, tensor representations, quasars and neutrinos. We are humans that can talk, and our science has given us many distinctions about the universe including these, just in the last century or so. But who knows what new distinctions will emerge that enable us to discuss IRC with more clarity and precision? Until we have such distinctions we will have to lean heavily on metaphors, as I often do here. If you do happen to be familiar with the mathematics of QM, however, I do here strongly suggest you review presentations that support the conclusions of this blog entry. I list couple of examples below.
IRC and quantum information theory
How well is IRC standing up in the light of more recent developments in Quantum Mechanics such as those discussed above? I would say very well, near as I can tell. I focus particularly on the newer perspective of viewing QM not about the underlying workings of the universe but rather, seeing QM as a branch of information theory, a framework embodying a set of rules relating to how we can get information about certain phenomena going on in the universe. You can get this viewpoint in a YouTube video presentation by Philip Ball at a presentation to the Royal Institution at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6I. And in multiple writings by Christoger Fuchs (see http://perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/cfuchs/). This viewpoint, about which I say more below, is quite accommodating to IRC as well as QM. In fact, instead of trying to make IRC look more than QM, it is a framework that says that QM is a form of IRC. This makes sense: what is fundamental is IRC. QM offers calculation machinery applicable in general for IRC but macroscopic non-coherent systems are too complex for the machinery to be used. For those systems we can depend on the familiar mechanisms of cause-and-and effect and conventional mechanics. But let’s not kid ourselves: everything in ordinary reality consists of highly entangled systems of quantum wave functions.
NATURE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS
The information revolution of the 20th century continuing in this century is completely dependent on quantum phenomena. Without them we could not have computers, cell phones, lasers, TV displays tunneling diodes, communications as we know them and a host of other important developments in the current technosphere. But to be clear, what we know that works is the mechanism of Quantum mechanics, namely calculations based on the Schrodinger equation and its extensions, for predicting practical quantum phenomena. We can do this with remarkable accuracy, enabling a number of practical applications that we now take for granted. The various interpretations of quantum physics (Copenhagen, multiple worlds, Kramer’s) highlighted in my treatise are not part of this working apparatus but rather serve as intellectual crutches to help us build images in human-familiar concepts of what might be going on in underlying physical reality, assuming that that exists at all. That is, they are just fancy systems of metaphors.
In QM (and in IRC) We apply an observable operator (usually a measurement such as for position or momentum of a particle) and what we observe can only be eigenvalues of the observables we apply. (“In quantum mechanics, an “eigenstate” of an operator is a state that will yield a certain value when the operator is measured. The eigenvalues of each eigenstate correspond to the allowable values of the quantity being measured” For a more precise mathematical characterization, you can see this reference) A-priori, we may only know a probability distribution of the possible outcomes (ex. That the spin of a particle may be 1 or 0 with equal probability.) It is intellectually misleading to say as is popular that before we measure the particle is in a superpositiosn of two states , 0 and 1. In fact we have no information on the state of the spin of the particle before the measurement, other than if we make a measurement, it will be either 0 or 1 with equal probability.
Thus, we humans as observers are key for the workings of quantum mechanics. Eigenvalues may or may not be probabilistically distributed. And further, the very process of making observations may affect what is observed. The mathematical apparatus of Quantum mechanics does not pretend to tell us what is going on in an underlying reality. Quantum theory interpretations attempt to do that, to assist us to understand quantum phenomena in more familiar human conceptual frameworks. QM is a theory of how our knowledge of the world changes when we intervene in it (Philip Ball https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6I). The quantum wave function tells us only what we might expect to find if we make a measurement. What is observed is entirely a function of what operators are applied. Results of measurements need not be consistent in a classical sense. In IRC terms where QM operators correspond to unbound intentions. What we observe, what happens is a function of the intention.
“Chris Fuchs: The Activating Observer: Resource Material for a Paulian/Wheelerish Conception of Nature
(PDF file, presently 733 KB, 188 pages, not ready for viewing yet)
This is the third and final installment of three in the Cerro Grande Fire Series. It reflects the following thought. What has always struck me as most wonderful in quantum mechanics is its indication of how our world may be more malleable than was thought in classical times. With our experimental interventions into nature, we—in the capacity of physical systems and nothing more—may have the opportunity to shape the world in unforeseen and perhaps significant ways. This document catalogs and annotates various materials exploring this idea, from the potentially deeply profound to the just-plain silly. Personally I suspect many of the works cited herein lean toward the profound, but that is an issue for science to decide. The 522 citations below are meant predominantly as historical tabulation and as motivation for such a future science.
The Oyster and the Quantum
(PowerPoint, 2,768 KB, 56 slides)
I say no interpretation of quantum mechanics is worth its salt unless it raises as many technical questions as it answers philosophical ones. In this talk, I hope to convey the essence of a salty, if not downright briny, point of view about quantum theory: The deepest truth of quantum information and computing is that our world is a world wildly sensitive to the touch. When we irritate it in the right way, the result is a pearl. The speculation is that this sensitivity alone gives rise to the whole show, with the quantum calculus portraying the best shot we can take at making predictions in such a world. True to form, I ask more questions than I know how to answer. However, along the way, I give a variant of Gleason’s theorem that works even for rational and two-dimensional Hilbert spaces, give another variant of Gleason’s theorem that gives rise to the tensor-product rule for combining quantum systems, and finally derive a new form for expressing how quantum states change upon the action of a measurement.”
If you are among the few that can follow Dirac notations and the mathematics of QM, I strongly suggest you review Fuchs’ Powerpoint presentation at The Oyster and the Quantum. This makes a strong case for QM and IRC being information theories and supports other assertions I am making here.
NATURE OF INTENTIONAL REALITY CREATION (IRC)
IRC is not necessarily about changing the course of the universe, whatever that could mean. Rather, it is a framework for a human being to interact with the universe in a way hopefully to observe a desired outcome of an intention. In this regard it can be viewed as an information theory of knowledge rather than as a way of molding underlying reality. An intention in IRC plays the same role as an observation in QM. Outcomes of IRC are entirely functions of the intentions applied. Just as for QM, we can say IRC is a theory of how our knowledge of the world changes when we intervene in it.
Differences between IRC and QM
In essence, Fuchs and others as quoted above seem to be saying that QM is part of IRC. This leads me to discuss the obvious differences between QM and IRC.
Scale: The mathematical apparatus QM seems to deal with sub-nuclear sized particles, True, but strong quantum effects show up at normal human scales, such as in everyday electronics. IRC seems to apply at every macroscopic scale.
Coherence: Quantum effects show up in coherent systems such as in a laser beam of photons or super-cooled superconducting liquid. IRC applies to highly complex systems where any trace of coherency is lost. Quantum coherence and quantum entanglement appear to be closely related concepts and perhaps simply describe different aspects of the same phenomena. See this article.
Popular explanations of QM make statements such as “Quantum mechanics applies only at sub-nuclear scales when there is little entanglement and much coherence. Otherwise classical mechanics applies.” This is very misleading. It is much more accurate to say “All systems behave according to the laws of QM, more accurately according to the laws of quantum field theory. At larger scales of reality where there is a great deal of decoherence (entanglement), classical mechanics provide excellent predictive approximations. Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are not competitors with some mysterious crossover point of scale where one gives way to the other.
Operators: An Operator in QM corresponds to a physical experiment that leads to a measurement. The value of that measurement beforehand can be predicted by the distribution of its eigenvalues and afterwards is fixed by the value of the observation.
Eigenvalues of some IRC intentions are known – either the intention as stated is realized or not. The outcome of the experiment is what is observed by the intention formulator.
Physicality: In QM, it may be necessary to manipulate a physical apparatus to initiate an operator. This could be very complicated. In IRC, formulation of a clear unbounded intention appears to be all that is needed. How this works physically is less-clear than for measuring the position of an electron. The detection measurement is whether the IRC formulator experiences realization of the intention.
Weak causality and IRC in the multiple worlds interpretation (MWI)
Here is another pass as to how IRC works, as a personal information theory about how we know the universe with reference to the MWI. According to the MWI, if anything T can possibly happen, in some universes, T does happen. I take the boundary condition of what can happen to being satisfaction of causality for macroscopic phenomena, Specifically, I define weak causality as follows, using distinctions laid out in my treatise:
- At any given time t1, an individual’s experience is in a manifold of multiple universes M, each wjth different pasts and futures. Only universes with pasts consistent with the individual’s experience record are included in M. I have no universes in M where I have three arms, or in which the capital of Alabama is Moscow, or ones where my mother was a professional tightrope walker. However, I have argued that a person’s experience record still leaves that person’s possible pasts vastly undetermined. I do not know what love affairs my mother or father might have had. A large multiplicity of universes may therefore exist in M containing different complexes of past events that are unknown to me but consistent with my experience record. These can be “mined” by IRC to create a cause-and-effect chain that leads to materialization of an intended result.
- For an intention I formulated at time t1, a condition of weak causality for I exists if there are universes in M in which past macroscopic events can create the results of the intention I according to ordinary laws of cause and effect for macroscopic entities. This is why results of hundreds of successful IRC interventions I have made over the years always after the fact, seemed to have arrived as a normal consequence of a plausible traceable chain of cause-and-effect events.
- So, in the MWI, a successful IRC intention slides the intention formulator (IF) over into a submanifold of M, call it M’ where the information fed back to IF is what he or she wants to hear; the intention is satisfied. Put simply, the universe aims to please whenever it can. Never mind all those universes where the intention I is not satisfied.
Assuming IRC extends to all biological entities as I have argued, The last point is probably why so very very many conditions in the universe are life-sustaining.
Bringing it all together, in QM and IRC, there are
- Observer (intention Formulator IF in IRC)
- Responder (no good name for this, perhaps being itself)
- A request for information (operator or experiment in QM, unbound intention in IRC)
- A response (result of the experiment in QM, whether the intention is realized or not)
“Magic” role of the Observer (Intention Formulator)
In the movie Big, a young boy made a request to an antique carnival fortune-telling machine, the kind with a case of polished dark wood and a head and torso doll effigy of a turbaned magician in a glass case. The magician doll had the name Zoltar and he is dressed and looks like a Mongolian mystic. His hands hover over a fortune-telling globe. The boy expressed an intention to the machine “I want to be big.” The magician moves its plaster head and hand, and its eyes lit up and the machine printed out a card saying “Your wish is granted.” And the boy woke up the next day big, in the body of a 30 year-old (played by Tom Hanks) instead of that of a 12-year old. Quite magical. Especially in the movie because the machine was not even plugged in. All for just a penny. Later in the movie the awkward boy in the man’s body found the machine again, unplugged it, and wished himself back to his original 12-year old body.
Migod! Can we simply mess with the universe that way? Are all my writings on IRC Magical Thinking? It is true that as a young boy 80 years ago I was fascinated by fortune-telling machines like Zoltar, and you can still find a few of them in dusty corners of old arcades. Each one is unique, with the dolls in the glassed boxes dressed and laid out a little differently. Did they brainwash me?
You can still buy one of these iconic machines for your own basement or a poster of one. See this link.
IRC would not work for the request made in the Big movie, for at least two reasons. The first reason, as explained above, is impossible causality – there are no possible causal chains in ordinary reality for a person’s body to change overnight from that of a 12 year-old to that of a 30 year-old or back again. The second reason, explained in my treatise, is quantum complementarity, a bit more subtle. Time and energy are complementary variables satisfying a Heisenberg uncertainty inequality, If you know the exact value of one in an interaction, you can know nothing about the other. So even if you could get the universe to muster the energy for the age shift, getting the universe to make the shift overnight is just not plausible. But it is completely ordinary for the universe to shift someone to an 18 year-older body. It just takes 18 years. And there is no going back.