Non random is interesting

Non random is interesting ....

Date sent: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:12:43 -0800

From: Jack <sarfatti@well.com>

Subject: Re: Non random is interesting

Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency

Gary E Schwartz wrote:

> Hi Jack - thanks for including me in your emails with Dick and Dean.

> If non-random is interesting to you, consider the following --- if

> Bohm's Undivided Universe is true, and Laszlo's Interconnected Universe

> is true, then "true randomness" does not exist, and what has been

> interpreted as random is actually, to use Paul L's recent term

> "pseudo-random." You want a foundation shaker - take Bohm and Laszlo

> seriously, and integrate their perspectives. It will lead you to the

> profound realization that the conditions for randomness are not met in

> an undivided, interconnected universe - when you add feedback to this

> universe, you get a feedback memory process that acts at all levels of

> nature.....Simple logic, deep implications....The analysis requires

> phenomena like Dick and Dean and Roger and Linda and I have been

> uncovering. It comes with the logical territory....described in the

> living energy universe....All the best, Gary

[Jack]

The point here Gary is that RNG's based on quantum processes are thought

by everyone to be absolutely reliably locally random as a matter of

principle. By this I mean, the precise moment when an individual nucleus

will decay, or when a given electron will tunnel through a barrier, is

thought to have no cause, certainly no past cause. Not even nonlocal

entanglement matters locally. Take two photons that are nonlocally

connected to each other. Look at the polarization of only one of them, it

is completely random, i.e. unpolarized. Nothing you do to the distant twin

photon will alter that local unpolarized state. That is the

signal-locality associated with absolute local quantum randomness. Measure

the local linear polarization along a given direction of a sequence of

such single photons at point A, each A-photon nonlocally connected to a

twin B-photon far away. The sequence of +1's and -1's from the local

polarizer output will be completely random by any statistical test.

Quantum cryptography is based on this assumption. Therefore, even a very

weak violation of this calls for a dramatic paradigm shift. I do not agree

with Dick Bierman that if the effect is statistically weak that it does

not call for a dramatic shift in world view. It's like superconductivity,

it's not that the resistance is weak, it's that it is exactly zero.

Similarly here. It's not that the data is almost random or weakly

unrandom, it must be completely random or else quantum theory is wrong!

Quantum theory is very exacting here. It is very testable.

Your idea that nonlocality destroys local quantum randomness is simply

wrong in an elementary way as a matter of standard physics. If you

understood the math here you would see why.

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

To: Jack <sarfatti@well.com>

Subject: Re: Non random is interesting

Date sent: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:50:50 -0400

On 25 Feb 00, at 9:12, Jack wrote:

> It's not that the data is almost random or weakly

> unrandom, it must be completely random or else quantum theory is wrong!

Jack,

Quantum theory allows us to calculate "averages" and "probability

distributions", but never, never, never says anything about the "events"

and the character and source of randomness. It is wishful thinking of

physicists that is not in the formal apparatus of quantum theory. In fact

there are many quantum theorists that negate the very existence of events.

Some quantum opticians do cheat, and they "derive" algorithms for

generating "events", but if you study what they are doing - you will see

that, again, it is their wishful thinking - there are infinity many

different random processes that reproduce quantum optics master equations.

Never quantum theory (the standard one, I mean) tells us what random

process generates "events".

It is only EEQT that does so, and does so in a unique way. But, again, we

know from theories of complex systems, that random Markov processes are

indistinguishable from certain "pseudo-random" processes generated in

sufficiently complex systems. Therefore way to explaining probabilistic

character of QM by "complex subdynamics" is open. With one addition: the

"complex subdynamics" in question must operate in hyperspace rather than

in 4d space-time (because of nonlocality of QM).

Ark

Date sent: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:00:28 -0800

From: Jack <sarfatti@well.com>

Subject: Re: Non random is interesting

To: Gary E Schwartz

Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency

Gary E Schwartz wrote:

> Hi Ark - we hypothesize that what has been interpreted as random is what

> Paul Z calls "pseudo-random" - systems analysis integrated with quantum

> physics leads to this hypothesis....Since Linda and I are not physics,

> we speak from our deep knowledge of the predictions of systems

> analysis....

> I find it interesting that maybe quantum physics will evolve in a new

> way if this thesis turns out to be correct....Your analysis is most

> interesting....see www.livingenergyuniverse.com....Best, Gary

No you are missing the key point that both Paul Zielinski and I have been

trying to explain to you.

Again, the key point is that the data from GCP if it is "interesting" i.e.

nonrandom even if weakly, as long as it cannot be dismissed as "random"

i.e. "uninteresting" is a violation of quantum physics - period.

Similarly with Libet brain data on subjective antedating (temporal

referral) as first correctly pointed out by Penrose, confirmed by Wolf's

data analysis, and the Radin-Bierman "presponse" brain data + US CIA DIA

RV field operations all point to the same conclusion, quantum physics

fails for systems with "feel" if such systems are "nonclassical".

You systems view fails to grapple with the main fact that quantum

nonlocality itself does not violate absolute local quantum randomness.

That is what Shimony's "passion at a distance" is all about!

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:

> >

> > On 25 Feb 00, at 9:12, Jack wrote:

> >

> > > It's not that the data is almost random or weakly

> > > unrandom, it must be completely random or else quantum theory is

> > > wrong!

> >

> > Jack,

> >

> > Quantum theory allows us to calculate "averages" and "probability

> > distributions", but never, never, never says anything about the

> > "events" and the character and source of randomness. It is wishful

> > thinking of physicists that is not in the formal apparatus of quantum

> > theory. In fact there are many quantum theorists that negate the very

> > existence of events. Some quantum opticians do cheat, and they "derive"

> > algorithms for generating "events", but if you study what they are

> > doing - you will see that, again, it is their wishful thinking - there

> > are infinity many different random processes that reproduce quantum

> > optics master equations. Never quantum theory (the standard one, I

> > mean) tells us what random process generates "events".

> >

> > It is only EEQT that does so, and does so in a unique way. But, again,

> > we know from theories of complex systems, that random Markov processes

> > are indistinguishable from certain "pseudo-random" processes generated

> > in sufficiently complex systems. Therefore way to explaining

> > probabilistic character of QM by "complex subdynamics" is open. With

> > one addition: the "complex subdynamics" in question must operate in

> > hyperspace rather than in 4d space-time (because of nonlocality of

> > QM).

> >

> > ark

> >

Date sent: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:06:48 -0800

From: Paul Zielinski

To: Jack <sarfatti@well.com>

Copies to: Gary E Schwartz

Subject: Re: Non random is interesting

Jack wrote:

> Gary E Schwartz wrote:

> > Hi Ark - we hypothesize that what has been interpreted as random is

> > what Paul Z calls "pseudo-random" - systems analysis integrated with

> > quantum physics leads to this hypothesis....Since Linda and I are not

> > physics, we speak from our deep knowledge of the predictions of

> > systems analysis....

> >

> > I find it interesting that maybe quantum physics will evolve in a new

> > way if this thesis turns out to be correct....Your analysis is most

> > interesting....see www.livingenergyuniverse.com....Best, Gary

> No you are missing the key point that both Paul Zielinski and I have

> been trying to explain to you.

> Again, the key point is that the data from GCP if it is "interesting"

> i.e. nonrandom even if weakly, as long as it cannot be dismissed as

> "random" i.e. "uninteresting" is a violation of quantum physics -

> period.

> Similarly with Libet brain data on subjective antedating (temporal

> referral) as first correctly pointed out by Penrose, confirmed by Wolf's

> data analysis, and the Radin-Bierman "presponse" brain data + US CIA DIA

> RV field operations all point to the same conclusion, quantum physics

> fails for systems with "feel" if such systems are "nonclassical".

> You systems view fails to grapple with the main fact that quantum

> nonlocality itself does not violate absolute local quantum randomness.

> That is what Shimony's "passion at a distance" is all about!

I think Gary now understands -- or at least appreciates -- this point

about EPR and the statistical properties of isolated subsystems in QM. I

believe what he is alluding to here is that in Bohmian theory, apparent

"randomness" of, say, observed particle positions is in reality the result

of a deterministic process involving chaotic particle trajectories under

the action of the physical Q-potential. Thus, as in chaos theory in

general, highly complex and superficially "random" behavior is the

manifestation of an underlying non-linear dynamical law which is

fundamentally deterministic in principle -- although of course extreme

sensitivity to initial conditions will normally apply in practice.

Paul Zielinski

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk To: Jack <sarfatti@well.com>

Subject: Re: Non random is interesting

Date sent: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 17:36:52 -0400

On 25 Feb 00, at 11:38, Jack wrote:

> Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:

> > On 25 Feb 00, at 9:12, Jack wrote:

> >

> > > It's not that the data is almost random or weakly

> > > unrandom, it must be completely random or else quantum theory is

> > > wrong!

> >

> > Jack,

> >

> > Quantum theory allows us to calculate "averages" and "probability

> > distributions", but never, never, never says anything about the

> > "events" and the character and source of randomness.

> [Jack]

> Absolute local quantum randomness is definitely part of the quantum

> folklore. Look, for example, at Heinz Pagels's book, "The Cosmic Code"

> for the official view.

There are many other "official views". It depends on the office.

> Do you dispute the view that, for example, if you send one unpolarized

> photon at a time, with density matrix rho (below) through a two channel

> analyzer with 100% efficiency, able to detect a single photon,

> rho = (1/2)[|+1><+1| + |-1><-1|]

> for a given linear polarization basis, that the resulting time-series

> will not be perfectly random by any statistical test?

All experimental series are finite. Randomness is a concept that

applies (at most) to infinite sequences. Therefore no one can prove,

with certainty, randomness of these experimental sequences.

Moreover, no one can, with certainty, ascribe probability of the

given finite series being a subseries of an infinite random series.

Moreover, quantum theory does not even have a mechanism for

generating such series.

The "official view" you are quoting is a part of an official

"brainwashing".

> [Ark]

> > It is wishful thinking

> > of physicists that is not in the formal apparatus of quantum theory.

> [Jack]

> Perhaps. What does Henry Stapp say? He is expert on orthodox theory.

Henry is well aware of the fact that the standard quantum theory does not

generates events. He even wrote papers on this subject years ago. But yes,

I would like to know what he thinks about this particular subject now.

> [Ark]

> >

> > In fact there are many quantum theorists that negate the very

> > existence of events. Some quantum opticians do cheat, and they

> > "derive" algorithms for generating "events", but if you study what

> > they are doing - you will see that, again, it is their wishful

> > thinking there are infinity many different random processes that

> > reproduce quantum optics master equations.

> [Jack]

> How different? Is sounds like gauge transformations in quantum field

> theory, i.e. use an equivalence class of random processes in analogy to

> Faddeev et-al for "gauge equivalence classes".

If you wish, you may call them "gauge transformations". But are gauges

equal? Aren't some more equal than other? In fact the problem here is the

crucial one. You mentioned

rho = (1/2)[|+1><+1| + |-1><-1|]

Let me write it in terms of spin components for spin 1/2.

So let's have

rho = (1/2)[|+1x><+1x| + |-1x><-1x|]

for spin x projection.

But the same (exactly the same) density matrix is obtained by mixing

z- components

rho = (1/2)[|+1z><+1z| + |-1z><-1z|]

The person who prepares the state KNOWS whether she/he mixes

spin x or spin z components. But according to the standard quantum

theory the person that analyzes the state will never be able to find

out how the state was prepared. In fact there are infinitely many

ways of representing the same density matrix rho as mixture

of pure states. Gisin argued that being able to distinguish between

such mixtures implies superluminal communication.

How that relates to our question? Quantum optician who present

various random event processes (infinitely many of them) argue

that these are all equivalent (but sometimes they argue that some are more

equal than other and that it is the "setting of the experiment" that

decides which one to choose. In fact these processes are equivalent ONLY

if one asks questions that quantum theory allows us to ask. But

experimenters do not ask Mrs QT for permission. They ask their own

questions that are strictly forbidden. For instance they measure finite

sequences of EVENTS. Quantum theory says NOTHING, absolutely nothing about

such finite sequences!

Now, Nature deals continuously with such sequences. It would

be really surprising if biological systems would not use the freedom

of modulating such sequences with nonlocal information (see

B. Josephson general idea).

Also, we do know that there is experimental evidence that

there is a sense in which information is being transmitted

"faster than light". Therefore, by induction, we can reasonably

state a hypothesis that mixture indistinguishability will be

abandoned in the coming paradigm shift.

Will it be a return to classical physics, where statistical

figure is a simplex, and each mixed state decomposes uniquely into

pure states? Not necessarily so. There are other options. Perhaps the

theory of complex systems and Goedel's incompleteness are at the door to

the new physics. Perhaps Chaitin's "Mathematical definition of life"

shows us the viable way out of the "official view".

Believe it or not ....

ark

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

To: chaitin_@watson.ibm.com

Subject: howto.html

Date sent: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:30:33 -0400

Dear Dr Chaitin,

After reading "How to Run Algorithmic Information Theory on a

Computer" one question is bothering me.

Suppose I am iterested in complexity of finite sequences of natural

numbers. Is the following true?

Give any two sequences a,b of equal length n, there always exists

(perhaps very fancy) Universal Turing Machine that gives higher complexity

to a rather than b, and there exists (perhaps very fancy) Universal Turing

Machine that gives higher complexity to b rather than a?

If the answer to the above is "wrong" - how these sequences split into

classes, how can it be that for certain a,b the above is true, and for

other is not true?

Ark

Date sent: Mon, 28 Feb 00 16:50:30 EST

From: CHAITIN

Subject: your question

> Give any two sequences a,b of equal length n, there always exists

> (perhaps very fancy) Universal Turing Machine that gives higher

> complexity to a rather than b, and there exists (perhaps very fancy)

> Universal Turing Machine that gives higher complexity to b rather than

> a?

Yes, that it correct.

Rgds,

GJC

Last modified on: June 27, 2005.