The idea that the physical world is the output of something else is radical but it isn’t new:

1. Fredkin. Says that the physical world as 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 beyond the physical is “… the Grid, that ur-stuff that underlies physical reality” (Wilczek, 2008 p111).

3. Wheeler. His phrase “It from Bit” implies that matter is in some way a processing output.

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

5. Campbell. Proposes that “The Big Computer” outputs everything (Campbell, 2003).

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

Quantum realism takes these ideas a step further, arguing that Fredkin’s Other is the quantum reality all around us now, that Wilczek’s Grid of “ur-stuff” is the quantum network, that Wheeler’s It from Bit is actually It from Qubit, that D’Espagnat’s veiled reality is the unseeable quantum world, that Campbell’s Big Computer is quantum processing, and that Barbour’s landscape that never changes is the primal reality that existed before our time and space began.

As Hiley said:
“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

The network proposed here isn’t physical because what creates a virtual reality doesn’t depend on what it creates. If that “hardware” is quantum reality, then it follows the rules of quantum theory not of its physical output. It is also expected to have the general properties of a processing network, such as:

a. Nodes. That run quantum processing.

b. Processing. That is based on qubits.

c.  Channels. That allow transfers between nodes.

d. Density. That reflects the number of channels per node.

e. Bandwidth. That is the capacity of node channels.

f.   Protocols. That decide what happens if an exception occurs.

Before exploring how a quantum processing network could create a space and time like ours, it is necessary to clarify that information isn’t a physical thing.

Next

Quantum theory defines the quantum processing that quantum realism proposes generates the physical world as a virtual reality. This section contrasts that processing, which is based on qubits, with the classical bit-based processing we are used to. The primal reality that generates quantum processing is proposed to originate from a quantum network.

QR2.1.1  The Quantum Network

QR2.1.2  Information Isn’t Physical

QR2.1.3  Reloading Reality

QR2.1.4    Quantum Processing Can’t be Saved

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

Every virtual world embodies a space and time to those living within it. This chapter analyzes the processing that a virtual world would need to generate a space and time that would appear to its inhabitants 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 thought 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. As the center of life, we were obviously made at 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 make choices. Being in charge makes us feel good, so the question “What are we?” isn’t asked, because we think we know. It seems obvious that we are at 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 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 egos repeatedly put 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 we are the center of reality, 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). Those who queried the dogmas of theism now accept those of materialism, so instead of thinking a book has all the answers, they think matter does.

Yet science is now telling us that physical reality isn’t central. It 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.

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). It follows that quantum realism isn’t a theory of everything, it is a query of everything.

Next

The philosopher Kuhn distinguished routine science that changes theories, from paradigm shifts that change their foundations. The axioms a theory is built on are its foundations, just as a house has foundations. Changing foundations isn’t routine because it is difficult, so Kuhn argued that science involves long periods of evolutionary theory development, 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. Clearly, science sometimes needs 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 then use a few axioms to predict many facts. Ignoring this criterion by adding new axioms for every new fact gives stagnation, just as putting a shack on every new plot of land gives a shanty town not a city of skyscrapers. That a theory is stagnating then indicates that a paradigm shift is needed.

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 equally 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 this 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 here is to base physics on quantum waves not matter particles, just as quantum theory does. This change is costly, but disruptive innovations are often the price of progress (Sandström, 2010). This change would add meaning to the equations of physics, to give it a semantic heart, as Schrödinger’s equation stays the same but now describes 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, there must be fundamental particles that self-exist, but quantum theory states that observation is needed for physical events to occur, and the evidence agrees. The patch for this crack is the standard model of physics, which invents imaginary particles to explain observer effects, so physics today is more about particles we can’t observe than matter we can.

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

Experiments can’t challenge physical realism until a viable alternative is proposed. Quantum realism proposes that physical reality is virtual, so it is 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 something out there apart from us, but that virtual particles pop out of nowhere to cause effects as physics claims isn’t common-sense at all, nor is it common sense that our universe came from a point of nothing. Today common-sense tells us that life isn’t a dream but could still be virtual if our universe began because it booted up.

In Russell’s time, there were few particles with mass, charge, and spin, but now forty-eight particles with twenty-four properties, five invisible fields, and fourteen virtual bosons, are needed 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 due to simplicity! In contrast, the following chapters explain the same facts using one fundamental process, one extra dimension, and one quantum field. Last century, physical realism was a simple theory but not today. Fast forward a hundred years and quantum realism is the simpler theory, so now Occam’s razor cuts the other way.

Next