The idea that physical events are an output is radical but not new:

1. Fredkin. Proposed that for physical events to be an output “…only requires one far-fetched assumption: there is this place, Other, that hosts the engine that “runs” the physics.” (Fredkin, 2005) p275.

2. Wilczek. Proposed that causing the physical is “… the Grid, that ur-stuff that underlies physical reality” (Wilczek, 2008 p111).

3. Wheeler. Proposed that “… every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits … a conclusion which we epitomize in the phrase, it from bit.” (Wheeler, 1989).

4. D’Espagnat. Proposed that a “veiled reality” generates time, space, matter, and energy (D’Espagnat, 1995).

5. Campbell. Proposed that a “Big Computer” outputs everything (Campbell, 2003).

6. Barbour. Proposed a reality where “The mists come and go, changing constantly over a landscape that itself never changes” (Barbour, 1999) p230.

Now let Fredkin’s engine, Wilczek’s ur-grid, Wheeler’s bit source, D’Espagnat’s veiled reality, Campbell’s big computer, and Barbour’s landscape that never changes, all refer to a primal network that existed before our time and space began. In a cellphone network, each station actively supports local cellphones and also communicates with its neighbors (Figure 2.1). The proposed quantum network is the same, except it isn’t physical, and each node is a point of space that runs quantum entities. The result is the same as Feynman’s idea of space, as Hiley recalled:

“I remember … Richard Feynman … saying that he thought of a point in space-time as being like a computer with an input and output connecting neighboring points” (Davies & Brown, 1999) p138.

If each point of space is a processing point, as Feynman thought, then the quantum network isn’t in space, it is what generates space. And if null processing is space, a photon or electron can be a non-null result.

Yet if quantum processing generates matter, is matter information, as Wheelers It from Bit implies? Before exploring how a quantum network could create a space and time like ours, let us clarify the relation between matter and information.

Next

Quantum theory describes how quantum processes generate physical events. We know that such processing occurs because we have built quantum computers that use it and they work. Quantum processing follows quantum laws that ignore physical limits so it has more power than any physical computer, but how does it run and what does it do? This section suggests that it runs on a quantum network and is in our terms the processing of processing.

QR2.1.1  The Quantum Network

QR2.1.2  Information Isn’t Physical

QR2.1.3  Reloading Reality

QR2.1.4    Quantum Cloning

QR2.1.5  The Processing of Processing

Next

Quantum Realism Part I. The Observed Reality

……Chapter 2. Simulating Space and Time

Brian Whitworth, New Zealand

…

“To me every hour of the light and dark is a miracle,…Every cubic inch of space is a miracle”

Walt Whitman

A virtual world can embody a space and time to the inhabitants within it. This chapter analyzes how a virtual world could have a space and time that would appear to its residents as ours does to us.                             Download Whole Chapter

QR2.1 The Primal Reality

QR2.2 Space as a Network

QR2.3 Time as Processing Cycles

QR2.4 Implications

QR2.5 Reinventing Physics

Summary Table

Discussion Questions

References

Next

The following questions are addressed in this chapter. They are better discussed in a group to allow a variety of opinions to emerge. The relevant section link is given after each question:

1.   In what sense is current physics a “hollow science”? What is missing? (QR1.1.2)

2.   Why is it hard to argue for dualism, for a spiritual world as well as a physical one? (QR1.2.2)

3.   How does an objective reality differ from a virtual reality? (QR1.2.3)

4.   Has science proved that the physical world is an objective reality? (QR1.2.3)

5.   How does quantum realism agree with The Matrix? How does it differ? (QR1.2.5)

6.   How are quantum realism and physical realism the same? What is the difference? (QR1.2.5)

7.   Could science still operate in a virtual reality? (QR1.2.6)

8.   What physical evidence fits the theory that the physical world is a virtual reality? (QR1.3.1)

9.   Why do many physicists deny that quantum events cause physical events? (QR1.3.2)

10.  Is the physical world computing itself? (QR1.4.1)

11.  Did the physical universe create itself in the “big bang”? (QR1.4.2)

12. How did our space “begin” if there was no “somewhere” for it to begin at? (QR1.4.2)

13. How did our time begin if there was no time “moment” for it to begin at? (QR1.4.2)

14.  How can space be both nothing and something? (QR1.4.3)

15.  Why can’t anything go faster than light? (QR1.4.4)

16.  Is physics more “scientific” because it studies physical reality? (QR1.4.5)

17.  Is quantum realism falsifiable? Is physical realism falsifiable? (QR1.5.1)

18.  How can quantum realism be evaluated scientifically? (QR1.5.2)

19.  What is Occam’s razor? Does it support physical realism? (QR1.6.1)

20.  What evidence suggests that the physical world not eternal, all-pervasive, all-powerful or self-existing? (QR1.6.2)

21. Does quantum realism challenge the correctness of physics equations? If not, what does it do? (QR1.6.3)

22.  How has science challenged our ego in the past? What ego-fallacy does quantum realism challenge? (QR1.6.4)

Next

Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49(2), 91–94.

Atkins, P. (2011). On Being: A scientist’s exploration of the great questions of existence. Oxford University Press.

Audretsch, J. (2004). Entangled World: The fascination of quantum information and computation. Verlag: Wiley.

Baggot, J. (2013). Farewell to Reality: How fairytale physics betrays the search for scientific truth. London: Constable.

Barrow, J. D. (2007). New theories of everything. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bone, J. (2005). The social map and the problem of order: A re-evaluation of “Homo Sociologicus.” Theory & Science, 6(1).

Bostrom, N. (2002). Are you Living in a Computer Simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 243–255.

Chaitin, G. (2006). The limits of reason. Scientific American, 294(3), 74–81.

Cho, A. (2000). Physicists Unveil Schrodinger’s SQUID. Science, 287(31 March).

Deutsch, D. (1997). The Fabric of Reality. Penguin Press: Allen lane.

Esfeld, M. (2004). Quantum Theory: A Challenge for Philosophy! In J. Audretsch (Ed.), Entangled World (pp. 271–296). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

Everett, H. (1957). “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. of Mod. Phys., 29, 454–462.

Ford, K. W. (2004). The Quantum World: Quantum Physics for Everyone. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.

Fredkin, E. (1990). Digital Mechanics. Physica D, 254–270.

Greene, B. (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos. New York: Vintage Books.

Gribbin, J. (2000). The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything. Little, Brown & Company.

Guth, A. (1998). The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Perseus Books.

Hafele, J. C., & Keating, R. E. (1972). Around-the-world atomic clocks: Observed relativistic time gains. Science, 177, 168–170.

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., & Park, J. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.

Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social Identity Theory. Springer-Verlag New York.

J. Khoury, B. A. O. (2001). Ekpyrotic universe: Colliding branes and the origin of the hot big bang. Phys. Rev. D64, (12).

Kant, I. (2002). Critique of Pure Reason. In M. C. Beardsley (Ed.), The European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietsche. New York: The Modern Library.

Kelly, K. (2002). God is the Machine. Wired, 10(12).

Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Vol. Second Edition, Enlarged). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kwiat, P. G., Weinfurter, H., Herzog, T., Zeilinger, A., & Kasevich, M. A. (1995). Interaction-free Measurement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 74, 4763.

Lloyd, S. (1999). Universe as Quantum Computer. 17 Dec.

Lloyd, S. (2006). Programming the Universe. A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos. Alfred A. Knopf.

McCabe, G. (2005). Universe creation on a computer. Stud.Hist.Philos.Mod.Phys.36:591-625.

Nikoli´, H. (2008, Access Date). Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts.

Piccinini, G. (2007). Computational modelling vs computational explanation: Is everything a Turing machine and does it matter to a philosophy of mind? The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85(1), 93–115.

Power, A. (2010). The online public or cybercitizen. SCRIPTed – A Journal of Law, Technology & Society, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www2.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/

Pratchett, T., Stewart, I., & Cohen, J. (1999). The Science of Discworld. EBURY PRESS/Random House, London.

Raspanti, M. (2000). The Virtual Universe. Authorhouse.

Rhodes, R. (2001, Access Date). A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Sandström, C. G. (2010). A revised perspective on Disruptive Innovation – Exploring Value, Networks and Business models. Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg, Sweden.

Schmidhuber, J. (1997). A Computer Scientist’s View of Life, the Universe and Everything. In C. Freksa (Ed.), Foundations of Computer Science: Potential-Theory-Cognition Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 201–208). Springer.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Smolin, L. (2001). Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. New York: Basic Books.

Smolin, L. (2006). The Trouble with Physics. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Svozil, K. (2005). Computational Universes. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 25(4), 845–859.

Tegmark, M. (1997, Access Date). The interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words.

Tegmark, M. (2007). The Mathematical Universe. In R. Chiao (Ed.), Visions of Discovery: Shedding New Light on Physics and Cosmology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Tegmark, M., & Wheeler, J. A. (2001). 100 Years of the Quantum. Scientific American, (Feb), p68-75.

Vacca, J. (2005). The World’s 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Whitworth, B., & Ahmad, A. (2013). The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities. The Interaction Design Foundation.

Wigner, E. (1960). The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. In Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No. I. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wolfram, S. (2002). A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media.

Zuse, K. (1969). Calculating Space. Cambridge Mass.: MIT.

Next

Thanks to Onofrio Russo (NJIT) who aroused my interest in this by telling me what Dirac told him about light.

Thanks for helpful comments and advice to (in alphabetical order):

Akram Ben Aissi, Steve Alvarez, Mehmet Ata, Alethea Black, Gayle Dean, Tom Campbell, David Chartrand, Jonathan Dickau, Andrew Eaglen, Kent Forbes, Robert Frot, Carl Grove, Kevin Hyndman, Lucian Ionescu, Ben Iscatus, Tim Jones, Bogdan Lazar, Alex Lightman, Alexander Macris, Bruce Maier, Mason Mulholland, Paul Olivier, Ervin Olah, Kevin Player, Ross Rhodes, John Ringland, Paul Smith, Claudio Soprano, Gunnar Jörgen Viggósson, Ram Vimal, Bryan Warner, Marty Wollner, Ian Wilson and Eden Yin.

Especial thanks to Celso Antonio Almeida, Matthew Raspanti and Belinda Sibly for detailed edits of the rough early chapters.

I also thank my son Alex who always helps me think more clearly. Still, the mistakes are mine alone.

Science has long opposed our human tendency to make ourselves the center of things, so:

“Since our earliest ancestors admired the stars, our human egos have suffered a series of blows.” (Tegmark, 2007)

For example, we once thought we were physically central, because we saw the sun move around the earth. Being at the center of things made us feel good, so the question “Where are we?” didn’t arise, as we already knew the answer. We were obviously the center of everything, so when Galileo and Copernicus challenged geocentrism, they also denied the ego idea that the universe revolves around us. Science now tells us that we live on a little planet circling a medium star, in a galaxy of a hundred billion stars, in a universe of at least that many galaxies. Mankind is like a colony of bacteria dominating a leaf of a tree in a vast forest, but this ego blow was the price we paid for new knowledge in astronomy.

We also thought we were biologically central, because animals seemed below us. Being superior to animals made us feel good, so the question “When were we?” wasn’t asked either, as again we thought we knew. The center of life was obviously there from the beginning, so when Darwin challenged creationism, he also denied the ego idea that life revolves around us. Science now tells us that humans only evolved from animals a few million years ago, while dinosaurs ruled the earth for two-hundred million years before a meteor wiped them out. Mankind is just another species and bacteria, insects, and plants all exceed us in biomass, but this ego blow was the price we paid for new knowledge in biology.

Today, we think we are mentally central, because we can make choices. Being in charge makes us feel good, so the question “What are we?” isn’t asked because yet again we think we know. It seems obvious that we are the center of the body, observing it, so when science challenges the dualism that a mind observes the body, it also denies the ego idea that our bodies revolve around a central self. Science now tells us that our brains have no center equivalent to the central processing unit of a computer. The higher parts of the brain are duplicated, and if they are surgically disconnected, they share control and each takes itself to be “I” (Sperry & Gazzaniga, 1967). We aren’t even the center of our own brains, but this ego blow is the price we are paying for new knowledge in neurology.

The trend is clear: our ego repeatedly puts us at the center of things and science repeatedly finds that we aren’t. We aren’t the center of the universe, or of life, or even of our own brain, but old habits die hard, so we still think that reality revolves around matter, that what we see is real because we see it so. That we know reality makes us feel good, so the question “What is real?” again doesn’t arise. Obviously, matter is real, so when quantum realism challenges materialism, it also denies the ego idea that we know reality. The idea that science knows everything, or is about to but for some loose ends, has been called the delusion of scientific omniscience (Sheldrake, 2012). It is ironic that scientists query the dogmas of theism but accept the dogmas of materialism.

Science is now telling us that the center of reality isn’t physical. Physical reality isn’t conserved because our universe began, it isn’t continuous because space and time change in quantum steps, it isn’t complete because radioactive events aren’t predictable, and it isn’t fundamental because particles can’t explain light waves. Table 1.1 (see Next) shows that there is nothing illogical or unscientific about quantum waves generating physical events. It may shock the ego, but it fits the facts. The ego blow that science isn’t omniscient is the price we must pay for new knowledge of reality. It follows that quantum realism is a query of everything not a theory of everything.

The following chapters reverse engineer the world in a physics from scratch approach (Tegmark, 2007 p6) that derives space, time, matter, and energy from first principles. It deduces rather than assumes the charges of electrons and neutrinos (4.3.2), and predicts that matter came from light (4.5.9).

Next

The philosopher Kuhn distinguished routine science that changes theories, from paradigm shifts that change their foundations, where the axioms a theory is built on are its foundations. Changing foundations is difficult so Kuhn argued that science involves long periods of routine theory changes interspersed with occasional revolutionary paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 1970).

For example, Euclid’s assumption that parallel lines can’t converge was accepted for two thousand years, until it was realized that on curved surfaces like the earth, parallel longitudes do converge (at the poles). Changing that axiom gave hyper-geometries that work on curved surfaces, and made Euclid’s geometry the special case of a flat surface. Einstein’s relativity was another paradigm shift that included its predecessor, Newton’s mechanics, as a special case. Science sometimes has to change its foundations to advance.

What then are good theory foundations? Chaitin argued that good axioms support more than one fact (Chaitin, 2006), based on Gödel’s proof that all theories are incomplete (Gödel, 1962). Good theories use a few axioms to predict many facts. Ignoring this criterion by adding new axioms for every new fact increases size not success, just as putting a shack on every new plot of land gives a shanty town not a city of skyscrapers. That a theory isn’t increasing knowledge is a sign that it needs a paradigm shift.

It is increasingly obvious that particle physics today is stagnating, as:

“One experiment after another is returning null results: No new particles, no new dimensions, no new symmetries.” (Hossenfelder, 2018).

It is also obvious that physics has been adding new axioms to explain new facts for a while now. Particles and fields have increased but not their predictions. Gravitons were assumed to explain gravity, but predicted nothing new. Virtual particles with mass were assumed to explain neutron decay, but again predicted nothing. A Higgs field was assumed to explain how those particles had mass, but it also led nowhere. The field has increased in complexity but has made no breakthrough in decades, suggesting the need for a paradigm shift.

The paradigm shift proposed is to base physics on waves not particles, as quantum theory does. This change is costly but disruptive innovations can be the price of progress (Sandström, 2010). Adding meaning to the equations of physics would give it a semantic heart not kill it. For example, Schrödinger’s equation would stay the same but now describe what exists, not what doesn’t. Just as giving up geocentrism gave new directions in astronomy, giving up materialism offers new directions in physics, such as a focus on light not matter (4.5.9). Changing Wheeler’s It from Bit into It from Qubit is the paradigm shift that physics needs, but it challenges the belief that we already have all the answers.

Next

Modern science began when Aristotle concluded that for all practical purposes, physical events have physical causes, and now it argues that matter, energy, space, and time is all there is. This belief in physical reality assumes it is conserved, continuous, complete, and fundamental. But lately cracks have appeared in these foundations that require theoretical patches, lest they collapse:

1. Conserved. If physical reality is all there is, it must be conserved in total. Parts of it can transform, as water turns into vapor, but the total must be in an eternal steady state. Unfortunately, big bang theory cracked this pillar last century, as what suddenly began isn’t eternal. One patch used to cover this fault is the speculation that a big crunch will follow the big bang, in an ongoing oscillation that is in effect a steady state.

2. Continuous. If physical reality is all there is, space and time must be continuous, without gaps. If time had gaps, matter wouldn’t exist continuously and so couldn’t be all that exists. If space had gaps, something beyond space would have to cause that. Unfortunately, assuming continuity in field theories creates infinities, and what is infinite is impossible. The patch used to cover up this crack was a mathematical method called renormalization, that Feynman called a “dippy process”. Essentially, it just defines the problem away.

3. Complete. If physical reality is all there is, everything must have a physical cause, but events like atomic decay have no physical cause. No physical history can explain when a radioactive atom emits a photon. Quantum theory adds that quantum collapse is random, so every physical event involves randomness. The patch in this case was the ludicrous idea that every random choice creates an entire new universe, to give a multiverse that has no randomness.

4. Fundamental. If physical reality is all there is, fundamental matter particles should exist without an observer, but quantum theory says that waves only become particles when observed, and the evidence agrees. The patch for this crack is the standard model of physics where imaginary particles explain observed effects like gravity. Physics today talks about particles but uses equations based on waves.

Figure 1.7 shows the four pillars of physical realism, their cracks, and the resulting patches. This paradigm survives by being established not by being well-founded, for if physical reality is always:

1. Conserved, then it must be eternal,

2. Continuous, then it must be all-pervading,

3. Complete, then it must be all-powerful, and

4. Fundamental, then it must self-existing.

That physical reality is conserved, continuous, complete, and fundamental therefore equates to saying that it is eternal, all-pervading, all-powerful, and self-existing, all properties once attributed to God. Physical realism essentially dresses up divine properties in scientific terms and applies them to physical reality, so it is more of an ideology than a theory of science.

The tradition of materialism is routinely defended rather than questioned but science can’t prove its assumptions about physical reality any more than religion could prove its beliefs about God. Instead of thinking a book has all the answers, it is now thought that physical reality does. But if physical reality is eternal, why did it begin? If it is all-pervading, why are there Planck limits? If it is all-powerful, what explains random events? If it is self-existing, why do quantum theory and relativity require an observer?

To accept physical realism today one must believe that matter began itself, that infinities can be defined away, that photons can spawn new universes, and that imaginary particles can cause real effects. To say that physical realism has shaky foundations is an understatement, but what is the alternative?

Science can’t challenge physical realism until an alternative is proposed, and that is quantum realism. It proposes that physical reality is virtual, and so impermanent, digital, contained, and dependent. A universe that began is impermanent not eternal. A universe of pixels and cycles is digital not all-pervading. A universe that is generated is contained not all-powerful. A universe that needs an observer is dependent not self-existing. To attribute divine properties to a virtual reality that is impermanent, digital, contained and dependent is foolish, and so quantum realism is proposed to replace it.

Next

Occam’s razor is to not multiply causes unnecessarily by preferring the simpler theory. A century ago, Bertrand Russell argued that life isn’t virtual by appealing to common sense and Occam’s razor:

“There is no logical impossibility in the supposition that the whole of life is a dream, in which we ourselves create all the objects that come before us. But although this is not logically impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of accounting for the facts of our own life, than the common-sense hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose action on us causes our sensations.” (Russell, 1912).

Does the same logic still apply today? It is still common sense that there is a reality out there apart from us, but that our universe exploded from a point of nothing isn’t common-sense at all. Today, common-sense tells us that maybe our universe began because it booted up. 

In Russell’s time, physics had a few particles with mass, charge, and spin, but now it needs forty-eight particles with twenty-four properties, five invisible fields, and fourteen virtual bosons, just to explain the basics. To explain inflation, neutrinos, or dark matter, needs even more fields, particles, and parameters. And our best universal theory, string theory, needs eleven dimensions to work.

It’s hard to imagine anything more complex than physics today, so if it is preferred, it isn’t by its simplicity! In contrast, the following chapters explain the same facts using one quantum process, one extra dimension, and one quantum field. Last century, physical realism was simpler but not today. Fast forward a hundred years and quantum realism is simpler, so now Occam’s razor cuts the other way.

Next