A Quantum-Information Theoretic Interpretation of Relative State Formulation

0:00 Thank you. Is this a chance when we're talking about this John's polymorphia? Right. May we resume then. Now we're going to talk about a quantum information interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is, so to say, by definition, a very evil thing I do to you, because speaking on the interplay of quantum mechanics is in itself evil, and you will find more evil than that, in the context of ANPAR, and you will see now it already turns out as far more evil it is, how far more evil it is, it is an interpretation of quantification based on the holographic principle that it's not that evil in the latest times, since already our president and referred. So it seems to be fit in, in any way fits in the Anbar. And cosmology, formerly known as super strength cosmology, is obviously something very evil in this room. Now, at Anbar, because Anbar is not fond of it, I know it very well. And what is even more English that I have nearly no competence to speak about it. But you know that already and so I must not mention it. Again. I think we are going to stop here. Okay, that's the abstract of the thing and I bring it because it resumes the thing better than I can do. In a sense, so a quantum information interpretation of quantum mechanics based on the holographic principle Horaba Witten model, also known as the Antietes Sitter Space, of mCosmology, will be proposed. This interpretation now tells you why I came into this, because I have no...

2:30 Okay, the phonographic principle one can understand quite easily in me, but Horaba Witten model is something I can utter the words, and then it stops the understanding. But I stumbled in it, and you will see how. This interpretation resumes the central idea of the relative state interpretation. Ah, this is the third, you will think, of huge effort, namely that the wave function of the universe desiccates a fundamental reality. Yet it has a different understanding of what makes up that fundamental reality, in which it differs comprised of its many-worlds version of the original relative state interpretation. It's not only me who thinks that many-worlds is a very consistent interpretation or a very consistent model of the relative state interpretation, but it is not an only necessary model. There are others which could be as well consistent with Everett's original proposal, but must not be the with many-worlds model of that. Bringing together features of the holographic principle and such of m-cosmology, the basic assumption of the proposed quantum information interpretation is that the observed universe should be seen as the three plus one-dimensional surface part of a not-observed, four plus one-dimensional bulk part, where the wave function of the universe eventually relates to the entire combined system, it is the surface and the bulk. So you have four dimensions of space and one dimension of time? Yeah, that's nice. I could have easily said 4 and 5, which is a normal thing, as it is referred to, but I dislike it because I don't think that this dimension should be taken as the same. It's, you know, whatever this time dimension might be is less obvious as we heard. As a convention, it's no problem at all, but as we heard by Julian Barber, the thing which should not be amalgamated with the other one as just simply another dimension. So, but it can be added and brought to a sum, and then it will be 4 and 5. The bulk space that we can provide is not located, and I must say, also not looked for, storage dump for the informational equivalent of the non-observed quantum states,

5:00 which was, of course, the problem ever addressed, because in his time it was simply that he said, I don't know why, the then very strongly prevailing, nearly monopolistic Copenhagen interpretation, and he was one of the first, I don't know, it was before Bohm? Exactly. Yeah? Exactly. The same time? Oh yeah, about in 50. Oh, about in 50. It's not a better point. And he simply didn't buy the collapse. And so he, some people even say that it's nothing but uninterpretation, quantum formalism. It is, as it is written down there, leave it. This is not completely true. He has a notion of branching, which not necessarily implies the splitting of universes. But branching, he has. Therefore, there should be a removing somehow, but not a collapse. The bulk space then can provide the not-located storage term for the informational equivalent, which justifies speaking of quantum information interpretation, which would not be justified by other things. The further result of this consideration is that the quantum theory of the future of duality, now I'm no more sure if this is even true, which once had been introduced by Einstein in his work of the nature of Liechtenstein, is seen as closely together with the feature of again conceiving these dualities as the very essence of quantum theory. This is just a speculation of mine. I was carried away with it because I think it is a very deep feature of quantum mechanics and I simply used the notion of duality in the wave-particle duality synonymous as the dualities in super-stick. shameful truth. And I got an idea, we come to this classical world by filtering off more

7:30 and more of these dualities, so that the very fundamental structure is hyper-dual, a lot of dualities, and we just have a last glimpse of these dualities in the wave pattern. This is as speculative as everything else, but even less corroborated. The implicit connection of interpretive and cosmological aspects made by the quantum information interpretation then reinforces again, but from their, and this is some people which are sitting here, from their respectively very different angles, already had been claimed by the relative state of interpretation, as well as David Bohm's holistic, this was a bit mean, saying holistic, I know I could have said causal, and it would be nicer. Interpretation of quantum mechanics, namely that an appropriate interpretation of QM as A, in the perspective of the relative state interpretation, directly to relate to the basic function of the universe, or B, in the perspective of the holistic interpretation, to the universe as a whole. And I think what I now say is perhaps really true, these different perspectives are normally not seen as being directed to the same picture, changing this is one purpose of this talk rather than paper. I have some copies of the papers on this table of the paper. So you're saying that you filter the world into a collection of trivial dualities as as opposed to more global important dualities, like great particle or complementaries. Complementaries are the most watered-down traces of a giant, great heap of dualities. Looking for fundamental theory is looking for fundamental dualities. An example for a mathematician would be, I think, the point-line duality and projected geometry, that's sort of a glorious example of a high-level duality. Yeah, yeah. This could be a good example. This is a kind of tacit idea. Not really the central one. No, probably not central. No, central for my talk now, because I edit this a little bit later, by beefing it up.

10:00 Essentially it is quite a simple proposition using the holographic principle and the idea of bulk space and the surface space time in this time and having the holographic principle doing the work, which had to have been done by the branching or splitting of the universes. So I nicknamed this interpretation myself as the many mappings, it would be from many worlds to the many mappings, this is the essential point. Yeah, this is the motivation to why. John, Archibald Wieler, once referred to the ontology of the many-worlds interpretation as too much metaphysical baggage. By that, refusing the consequences of the many-worlds interpretation requires and reserves for every decoherent or otherwise observed sin, as well as every seemingly non-global action, an entire copy of the universe of its own. Wager's cut was obviously to the point, but however, was not an argument against the theoretical consistency of the many-world interpretation. It was, of course, not meant to be that. You know very well that this is... Are you actually supporting Everett many worlds? Are you supporting Everett? Everett? Not the many worlds. Everett, yes. Price, but not. I don't know anything about Everett except for many worlds. Everett is normally the relative state, state, which means that we are in a relative state, this state, in which the observed but not consistent with the theory, collapsed, decohered or whatsoever, only partly state state is realized or actualized, and that the other state is not collapsed, not away, not gone, but it has the same actuality, the same reality as the observed one and is there. Now the question is if you can't see it, where is it?

12:30 And one, then De Witt, later solved this obvious question, said, yeah, all, everything is splitted, including the observer, and now if there's a copy of the universe and then the other universe, the other state is realized that now this is one and the main function relates to both. And this, of course, gives a giant inflation of copies of universes, which spreads tremendously because this is why every quantum event it happens, which is the metaphysical baggage. It is not, by the way, against Occam's razor, it has nothing to do with Occam's razor, it It is a pure weight problem, so to say, not a problem of intellectual consistency. It is a very consistent interpretation because it is nearly nothing else than the formalism itself. Some people think this is a drawback, some people, as I do think it is an advantage of this interpretation, it would be nearly nothing else than the formalism itself this is meant to be nearly nothing else just to say a little words of that it explains how you can think of a photon taking more possible hats from here to there of course it is hard really to believe in to overcome this excessive generosity of the relative state interpretation, which I tried to put out, which is taking quantum mechanic literal and then is taking the wave function as designating the yet still unknown fundamental reality, quantum mechanics, and then motivates to look, or motivator for me, to look for a parsimonious relative state interpretation. Such a parsimonious relative state interpretation can't by any means be without civil intricacies, since after all there wasn't very good reason for taking the many words interpretation as the proper version about its original proposal, namely avoiding non-local actions with respect to the problem of interpolation proposed by the EPR thought experiment. Everett alone, without David, counts nicely, quite nicely for decoherence.

15:00 You say that it's the whole state of the decoherent object which cannot be observed, but are there, there are no, a decoherent object is a fully quantum object which is only seen under perspective, so to say, the relative state that we are in. And the other are there, let it be in other places. This not necessarily would force you to split the universe, but splitting the universe was forced by the non-local action, not the de-cohered, which also happens there, this is not a problem, but how a distance met it. So you're also going to take these wave functions literally as a reality? here. Here. This is the point of the Everett. It's not me. That's the point of the Everett interpretation. One might like it or not, it simply is. It's what Everett says. Everett simply does it. He openly said so. That this is what he wants. He wants to take it literally And he looks now, you know, most other interpretations, in a sense, defend a little bit, I know this is a bit impolite to call me, you know, because they are belonging to the other, not specific to them, but in both cases it was obvious. They defend, in a sense, the common sense against what is demanded by quantum mechanics. In that case, isn't he right to protect the many universes that literally exist? Of course, I said so. The many-world interpretation is a consistent model of the relative. It is, in my eyes, the one which must come up first, and then you must take it, especially without any further watering down. This leads to the metaphysical baggage. Maybe it is the case. I don't believe it. You know, it is simply because I dislike it, let me say so. I won't necessarily justify my taste.

17:30 And so I'm looking for another version, I've looked for another version, this is a long time. Not buying too many wealth, but sticking to effort. Was this an answer to your question? Was this an answer to your question? Well, I don't quite know. I mean, I use the word reality, I hope you'll give it some to me. You're attaching reality to the weight action. Everett had a serious point, as he said, in that case, you should attach reality to these many independent, equally existent things. I think it's a verbal trick, that's my analysis, which, once having been pointed I think you are farthering on to Everett what DeWitt added afterwards. Well, that's why I'm pressing... And Dan is trying to prise off the original pure Everett idea. It is completely obscure. What would you do to Everett when he was alive? Yes, I heard so, at least. Anyway, he ran into the CIA and some people say he even ran into another universe by that. Can I interrupt a bit more, Dan, about that, because, to go back to the history, Wheeler is well known to believe always that his latest research student is the best. And at this particular stage, Everett was his latest and he pushed this scheme. I never heard anything more about Everett after that. Only, I mean, I know his scheme, but I never... Oh, it is a tremendous discussion. It is growing. I think it is meanwhile the most popular one interpretation. Since the Bowman has a faithful but not that giant. No, I mean the man himself. I mean the man himself. I don't know. I never had cause. The man, yes, he had an other article in the Graham book, which was not the original paper, but a version of this, and David Deutsch, which is one of the great believers in, the main words, I read it somewhere in the letter, I don't know where exactly,

20:00 that he has spoken with, in the 80s, I believe, I don't know exactly now, it was much later then, and at this time, Everett stuck, stuck, stuck, stuck, stuck to the bit, and said, because it is in discussion if it is true or not, if David was, and the paper itself doesn't decide it, the original paper of Everett, but in the discussion given by David Deutsch, it seems that Everett, even in the time when he wrote his paper, had more or less in mind what David then made over time. So, it might be true or not, it doesn't, anyway, yeah, it's a fact, one of the people of many faiths. Okay, what are the intricacies of such a thing, what I would now like, and it would be a parsimonious relative state explanation, something like a contradiction, adiector. The relative state interpretation says that all quantum states of their respective quantum objects are all equally real, but then that an observer, normally it is if looking at a particular object, only you can see one particular of these equivalents is equally entitled to be taken as real, complementary, this is complementary, of course, the Copenhagen jargon, state of the object. The fact that at one time only one of these states can actually be observed, then it has nothing to do with any presence or activity of any observer, but with the fact that at this time the observed state is not here. This is one of my, you know, you all know that I'm not a physicist, not a mathematician, and I'm less good at these things than normal people, so I must do this philosophy and other tricks. And so I speak of the semantics of not here. Since I think the semantics of not here are important, what does mean not here exactly? It is somewhere else, it is somewhere where it is not observable. Such semantics of not here are somewhere else. I might view not idle subtleties, but they

22:30 core of the answer Everett once gave to the question concerning the interpretation of quantum reality. The basic answer of the relative state interpretation is the answer which all further interpretations of this particular interpretation have to be consistent with is, in the light of the semantics of not here, the following. The fact that the unobserved quantum state isn't here does not at all mean it isn't there in the sense that it does not exist. And this is a very easy things that you can have easily. You say it isn't here, and by that you mean it is there. So, which for example is directly what the Copenhagen people did. Then there are other versions, the BOM, people would say it isn't here but it is somewhere else. And now it becomes difficult Because somewhere else where it is, in the Bohm world, or jargon, is somewhere here, but also not here. And this is, I think, a kind of inconsistency in the Bohm thing. Because, I think, the environmental decoherent people say it vanished to the environment. My goodness, why we can't find it then? Well, I was just about to say something very similar to what you just said. You're speaking of here and not here. It feels very similar to the locution of the implicate order, explicate order. But the implicate order is relevant with becoming explicate. It's not exactly here, but it's right ready to be here. Yeah, it's around the corner and this doesn't help because around the corner, you know, in our world, which could be hidden in a way that we by no means could find them, by real means, practical means. But in our world nothing can be hidden in a way that one cannot find it theoretically. If it's actually in our world, in this observable universe, then at least theoretically you can find it. Maybe not practically. And here you must make this, if you take it literally, quantum mechanics, you must make the assumption it is hidden and you cannot even find it theoretically, where theoretically means you cannot find it theoretically in a way that this could leave some almighty observer to see it.

25:00 All might be absurd, nothing more than that. So it must be not here, but it must be there, it must exist, and not be not here, and still exist, means be definitely not, so by no means, and by no whatever advanced technology and so on. This again goes, I'm sorry, you know, against... In this sense, I hope so. Quite mistakes, at least. How does this fit the words, those words, active and passive, in your looking? He uses now that it's active and the other one is passive. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this. I have to have a look. It's a different way of talking about one interpretation. I had a look when writing this thing in the undivided universe, but I'm not that familiar with it, so it makes no sense trying to understand it. Now, I'm going to be a bore on this question, but you can say it's not here, that's to say that the quantisation, the collapse of the way function hasn't happened, there are alternative in ways it might collapse, are they all equally there somewhere, some ready to appear at some suitable time? I know there's simply forces us back to everything, but I can't help that it seems to me the logical situation does do that. There are lots of, there's a problem of the preferred basis which wouldn't occur, and this is what I will say, because there's the problem of the preferred basis. So of the copying process doesn't only relate to the universe. Of course, speaking about many worlds, one does not doubt that one is in one of these worlds. And in a sense, from our point of view, then the other worlds are copies of our world. But of course it is not true in many worlds, which is a problem for many worlds, because all other are really

27:30 equally entitled to be THE world with an observer for which this other copy is THE world and WE might be copies of it. This gives a problem, because then there comes a problem of how in which direction would be copied. Even if you admit that all the copies have the same power to be copied, the same amount of copying power attached to them, which of course must be given, then there still is unclear if there is, so to say, a germ, a preferred world for which all the copying, so to say, started. And this is not very reasonably soluble, But since I don't be perfectly satisfied with one universe, I have no coming, I didn't get this problem. I try to do it in a very different way. Let us do it with the semantic open-out here. I hope you've got a bit of the point which I tried to make. Not here is exactly equivalent to unobservable? Yeah, it is. But in a very strict sense, where it is not related to the sufficiency of the observer. That was in the way of principle. That is, that is. Can I just guess that you're going to construct a sort of locked cupboard? You've already got it. Anyway, because I will soon come here, I'm not such original guy. In this latest Scientific American, you find an article by Jacob Bekenstein, which gives you a better graphic example than what I will give about what I'm speaking as a cosmological model. He doesn't speak about it. It is page 54. Please do not turn it and have a look at it. It gives you an impression what I will then later propose.

30:00 I was not even sure because I was not able to figure out if it is really the anti-dezitter space. So I did not use the term, I always had a five dimensional bulk, I had to, I thought it could be, because there's a big literature about anti-decentra space in the stream community, but I wasn't sure that I would have liked to risk that the old man said, my dear, it is not the anti-decentra space. Oh, who ever has? Good. And this was the reason I didn't use it. Now, in this article, which is much more popular and written by Susskind and Witton and all the other guys, which I do not understand, they are simply said here, this is the five dimensions of which he called Amnestyles. Okay, it's the end. In a certain respect, the fact that isn't here doesn't mean isn't there just says that the non-observed wonder state has the same reality as the respective observed state in this, that there's not a problem of existence but of location, I already said this. The problem then, however, returns by the fact that that location in question might relate not just beyond almost imagination, but even beyond almost everything, which makes it a little bit more complicated. So, then I now bring, this is the problem, so to say, and now comes the solution at the close. The quantum information in the equation of quantum mechanics is the matter of not here again. Since somewhere else just means nothing else and nothing more than not here, but here again means in this observable universe, it might be the case that the vanish, it is the not observable quantum states, are just outside. It is just outside of this observable universe, or just across its edge. This is an idea I had a long time ago, I thought this should be something like a quantum halo, where they are all in, but it doesn't work. But somewhere else does not mean or imply that these vanished quantum states at the outside, or just across the edge of the observable universe, would or should have to be associated with another world or universe.

32:30 Yet there is one more seeming tacit implication which might be not much less misleading than the one which claims to mean at higher universes to store municipal quantum states. This one has to do with the understanding of what is outside or what is the edge of what. For most of the time, for most of the time, when the relative state of the main road interpretation has been discussed, the Unisputed Self in their understanding, and not only the context of the decent opinions, was that the Observed Universe would be the obvious inside state, and the somewhere else late storage of the vanished quantum state, wherever or whatever this may be, would have to be considered to be the outside of this Unisputed Universe. Normally I think I have I have some very polemic footnotes in the paper, which is over there on the table. And I call this universe-centrism the last question of observance-centrism. We should not even take our universe as being a center of anything, I think. So we must do this work more and more, first looking out the Earth, the Sun, and the Observer, and then even the Universe. It is not a centre, it is a detail in a much larger thing. So, universes should become ordinary objects, ordinary objects you must be able to quantify about. So why take universes, this is not a many world interpretation, it is a very simple multiverse approach. It means there are other universes as this, this has nothing to do with our interpretation problems. But a universe should be a proper thing which comes to birth in the same way as all the other things is made as one of many, and nothing particular, even that we are living in, which of course is a little bit, has all these Coparrigan acts a little bit exciting.

35:00 Can you look across any description where the x-click at all is in the middle and the n-click at all is around the outside? No, I didn't relate to this. You've not seen anything? Yeah, now I lost a little bit. Yeah, so what is the edge of what? So, with respect to this, or where are we? Okay, I'll just read. With respect to this outer of the universe, the difference between the parsimonious relative state interpretation and the prodigal many-world interpretation would only be that in the relative state interpretation, this outer could be located just across the edge of the universe, so to speak, as a sort of quantum hardware, as the many worlds interpretation, want to do the job for or with less than other universes storage. Of course, these versions of the average information of quantum science would, in a rather unquestioned way, hold the observable universe as being the inside, the kernel or the bulk of this relation. And that's the unquestioned premise, which will be directed by quantum information interpretation based on the holographic principle, and m cosmology, cosmology as you saw, circulating in scientific American, provides you with two things, an inside and a magic machinism, for which you can get rid of the quantum states and where you can store them. In accordance with the holographic principle in a certain model of cosmology, the observable universe will not be seen as the inside or bulk or the storage bin for vanished quantum states, but rather as the outside, as the surface, or just as being at the edge of a bulk or kernel with one additional dimension. And that five or four plus one dimensional inside of a bulk is proposed to be the somewhere else I spoke about, which had been the synonym for the not here, which had been the answer to the question where are the vanished and is not observed quantum states. That four plus one dimensional bulk or kernel then is proposed to be the look for storage of the vanished non-served quantum states. So, this is a very boring thing to do one's own talk as transparencies.

37:30 There will come one or two more interesting ones. One of the together-we-speak coherence of the holographic principles, three essential cornerstones, this attempt recklessly utilized, had been presented by Peter Horaba and Edward in the context of the compactification of higher-dimensional super-strings domain to respectively lower-dimensional ones. Based on the results that a cosmological model called the Horawa-Bitten model gained some prominence in string cosmology, might be a reason to employ it. And cosmology, a major result of that approach was that the origin of our universe could be envisioned as a five-dimensional bulk space-time coming as the result of a compactification of an 11-dimensional supergravity, and that the observable part of the universe, it is the part we are actually living in, then has to be conceived as the faster than the original five-dimensional bulk part expanding four-dimensional surface part of that original five-dimensional universe. This has a very interesting thing for what is discussed in cosmology or quantum cosmology because it does away with inflation. You don't need inflation anymore because you need inflation to connect the universe properly because by a normal expansion it wouldn't do, but since it doesn't even compactifies near to a singularity, but to a proper mini-universe, the job of information is already done. Then it could also be interesting for the problem of flattening. As one can easily be seen soon, that has to do with the faster increase of the parameter than the bulk, which flattened the thing in itself. Such a m-cosmological model would imply a drastic change to all our previous understandings of cosmology that

40:00 would neither be anything remotely similar to a singularity, not even today in the Big bank scenario of Gabriele Veneziano and Maurizio Gasparini, again by means of Sittos in theory, ordered configuration of triviality, nor could the idea that the observable universe started, so to speak, by a kind of concentric expansion from a tiny spheroidal beginning. But in the end cosmological model, based on the Horawa-Litton theory, the observable universe rather started at the edge, or at the surface, of a respectively small five-dimensional structure, not with inflation, one might even say not with the limper, since the compactification from 11 dimensional supergravity is just meant to care for all of that instead. Yet in this paper I look for obvious reasons, these are terms with the cosmological impact and consequence of the Harvard Bitten model, nor with its M-theoretical underpinnings. Here the M-theoretical aspects aspects of that model are just taken as presuppositions and it is made use of them for the proposed quantum information interpretation of QAM. That has the perhaps rather dubious advantage that such a proposal based on secondary utilization is definitely wide open to falsifications. With respect to the task of presenting an interpretation of QAM, QAM mechanics said a shall we based on proper physical assumptions and b follow the central ideas of Everett's So let me state, namely that the wave function of the universe relates to the fundamental reality and that there is no realism of quantum classical cut, and I'd say the shells still operate parsimoniously, the horrible model of mcosmology that eventually provides the long-awaited 4 plus 1 dimensional storage space review. What we normally have is reality is real and everything else that's going to come in sometime is complex. Do they deal with that at all? No, I don't deal with that. But you know how this actual information and physical relationship then would work is a question which I do not even mention, it's just I present the model and so it is very well possible that by the certain physics which is required in such for sure not very simple bulk physics there could be very well even good explanation for the not so well understood complex numbers.

42:30 Because you would get, if it would turn out to be true, in a sense, a sort of proper physics of the things. You know what I mean? Of course, it should not be observable, and it's anyway hard to conceive how we could observe a five-dimensional space. So probably this would not be the case, but if it could be indirectly shown then we would get more and more information details of the, so to say, the internal physics of the bulk and there would be, it would be quite strange physics because it would be proper physics in more than three or four, as we've counted, proper physical dimensions, not Hilbert space dimensions, but physical space dimensions. So this could count for some of this, but I don't know exactly, this is not the business, I'm not in thinking about this. In this figure, which is shown here, you see a lower-dimensional analogy of the situation I refer to. This figure shows in a more simple diagrammatic manner the expansion of a two-dimensional universe, A, B, C, D, E, with a one-dimensional surface or accurately some cuts through the respective stages of the expansion of a three-dimensional universe with a two-dimensional surface. What differs from other illustrations with a comparable objective focus is that this two-dimensional universe somehow seems to lose its proper shape or just seems to become a bit rambling at the third stage of its evolution. But that the original circular shape and concentric expansion is changed to rather yet not necessarily regular elliptic shape in the figure one that is additionally correlated to the faster increase of the parameter in relation to the volume. In the two later stages of the evolution,

45:00 children in Figure 1, the faster increase of the parameter compared to the volume goes on, and that leads to an increase in flattening of the ellipsoid in question. So this is perhaps a hint that it could have something to do with the flattening which is observed. Okay, I'm of course quite out of time, so I will hardly jump without sticking to the only other transparency which is not just text, and this is an application to the EPR problem, because I think this works very well in this respect. So, here you find it. So, what we see in the middle is not what you have seen in the scientific American thing, it's not a black hole, nor is it any physical object, which is meant it's an informational of things so its size doesn't matter at all. It's just meant to be an information storage. We here see the EPR experiment and here we see the state of the involved particles before the experiment is done. And they are in one state, you see. I call it, because it is black in the paper then, I call it a conceived state, simply it shows that it is not observed. This of course is the same as being superposition here. So now something happens, an experiment and things become manipulated. Here, I call it flagged up and flagged down, split up, split down. This particle A becomes manipulated and polarized, spin down. What happens here? It happens the following. This gets highlighted, as I call it. Highlight being in the bulk means in the bulk there must be an information because the holographic principle says that all information of the bulk is represented on the surface.

47:30 What, by the way, means, and this is the interesting thing, I think, that all information on the surface must be represented in the bulk. This is a, so to say, bi-active relation, and if we do something on the surface and change the quantum state, what we do in this experiment, this must in some sense be re-registrated in the bulk. Of course nothing much changes, just the information must occur in the bulk because otherwise there would be more information on the surface than in the bulk and this is not allowed by the holographic principle. It is a one-to-one relation so it must do it if somehow marks or rather takes the mark off from the distance that, okay, they're just looking on it. What else then happens? In the bulk, I call it, it transfers its state to its neighbor in clockwise direction, and this one, you see, these are the complementary states related to this particle A. These are complementary states related to the party to me. So, it becomes like, okay, here they look at me, you must show Flagg-Darboa's spin-up, otherwise it isn't correct. Quantum mechanics demands this, and we know which states are then still unobserved, as had been before, and not affected, not highlighted. So it shows this, and by doing it the other way around, it just happens the other way around. Now, the funny thing, how many actions takes place in this? I was quite, I do not deny that there are non-local effects, obviously there are non-local effects, but how many takes only one action. If we do not, I would not do, call mapping an action. It seems it isn't an action because it will next any other attribute of an action. It has no measurable

50:00 physical attribute, except of projecting the information. And so one action takes place, the action of manipulating the one, then this gets transmitted to the bulk, in the bulk it gets transmitted whatever to the clockwise, the neighbor clockwise direction and this is mapped again back. This also makes the reason for calling the many mappings interpretation since mappings does all the job. So, because as I told you, oh my goodness, I would like Now I do it quite brutally, just bringing the transparency, because this is a little bit more sensibility, why not, to the bone correlation. Here, what I think is now an advantage of this thing is its ontological lightness. And this ontological lightness or the prevalence of the information aspect which gives a slight indication in what sense the quantum information differentiation differs from the other objectives or ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, including the holistic interpretation of David Bohm, respectively, is the later versions of that non-explanable potential approach, which on their line shows also some features somewhat familiar to the quantum information interpretation. The ontological difference of quantum information interpretation to these and other objectivist or ontological interpretation has at least two different yet connected aspects. These aspects are, apart from the difference in physical consequences which are attached to them of a genuine philosophical kind. In this, they are related to the question, is the respective interpretations have a dualistic or monistic ontological setting and, far more interestingly than that, the question of what the various possible kinds of monistic setting they imply. Now, I haven't the time to go into details. It is in the paper, I don't know, it's not much of a being, is it? Quite extensively. And I'll just go on just reading these...

52:30 transparencies. Monism is, after all, not such an unequivocal notion as one should expect for a term referring to something so seemingly uniform. Furthermore, the quantum information interpretation is also an actualistic interpretation of, in difference to strongly referring to potentiality, it is meant, of where it doesn't require or allow any pre-existence or pre-story quantum information states, this is more against the old Heisenberg objective collapse thing, which are not actualized or respectively concealed and by that instantaneously connected with the quantum states at the surface being observed or decoherent or respectively not observed or in superposition. The instantaneous actualism of the quantum information interpretation is again directly due to the holographic principle. The monism of the quantum information interpretation, from all of that, it is simply not a physicalistic monism and it is also not a sensualist, mentalist, as this is left on the text hour. It is simply not a physicalistic monism and it is also not a sensualist, mentalist or idealist monism in any way and normally one would think there is nothing else left. In philosophical terms, the monism of the quantum information interpretation And it has, in my view, to be seen as a quite new and pretty strange kind of neutral monism. That is the name of a concept which once had been introduced by Fr. Brassel and in a context completely different from that of the ontological implications of the interpretation of quantum machines. It wasn't a mind-body problem and has, besides of the term, nothing to do with that. And although with a distinctly different meaning of monism compared with that, what one has to inspect the case of the authority of the quantum information interpretation, and this should come at the last transparency, the monism which I actually have in mind. The monism implied by the quantum information interpretation will have to be as objectivist as this interpretation claims to be, and since it also claims to be no physicalistic monism, which is of course the provocating thing in it, it seems to have somewhat hybrid nature

55:00 and it seems just to be ontological, it's somehow neutral. In a hybrid, nature means sterility and neutrality sooner or later, neutrality sooner or later turns out not to be a stable position. Therefore, being neither physicalistic nor subjectivist in any sense can only go together with a comfortable ontological position when it can be, so to speak, substantiated by Mr. Bonbois, being found in a respectively neutral substance. So, in a sense, I would think that this implies a removing of any physical substance as being the substance. Asking for a substance independent from any physical or, in a broader sense, mental or subjective substance is machialism, physicalism, or idealism as such known, must appear quite of philosophical agitation, which you probably think it is. But interestingly enough, the answer to this question is possibly a nested implication of the holographic principle. What I mean by that, I can perhaps make it best clear by demonstrating that, what I think the holographic principle eventually will do to the concept of a well-known statement of Landau, namely, information is physical, was his statement, and it is quite frequently cited and popular. The hologramic principle, however, is, in my view, the first indication that Landau's statement eventually will have to be inverted and then goes as physics is informational, and that is, of course, not meant informally, but utterly ontologically. And since the hologramic principle, in particular, in connection with that informational aspect, sees quantum states, at least if vanished or not being observed, becoming equivalently quantum information states in the book, play such an important role in the quantum information interpretation, I therefore hold that the proper monism of that of the quantum information interpretation is information monism. It means that information is the real fundamental substance. And this brings me... It's not one word, isn't it? one word. It's a typical German, you know, German can make that long words, but you can't. You always must use sentences and that, no, no.

57:30 And this brings me to the talk of Owen, where you spoke of half an electron, which... No, it's a superposition. I know this, and I do not want to criticize you, but I see it's interesting because it is quite natural to see it this way. But if you see an electron at superposition, do we see two electrons? But what do we see? My goodness, we can see objects at superposition. Do we see two objects? Are they actually physically double there? Or what do we see? It would be no problem if there would be some analogy of any object, we know an object is the same, we can do something, and another informational state. At least it could say, hey, there are informational states, because otherwise we must double the world in the moment when we see some specific things and just at least only with small things. But if you say, okay, okay, this now, the informational aspect is in prevalence, tells us, okay, here, you have two informations, now, which is quite nice. It could go, or not, but there's no a priori, when you get this. And then, if you punch it a little bit, say, okay, okay, forget it, I'm just not here. Beat me. Okay, this was it. Can I just start around straight away, and I'm a very naive kind, it seemed to me that what you were, I asked you about the locked cupboard, but it seemed to me that what you provided is, the answer you provided is, oh yes, all these other, all these other inside, we're on the outside, we're on the surface of the cupboard. This is the anti-intuitive thing. One would not do it perhaps. Yeah, we thought it was the other way round. Right. Now, what was I going to ask you though about that? That seemed to me... Oh, yes. And so then you had these diagrams of EPR. Now, I took you to be saying when you...

1:00:00 are not action, they're just matterings. I told you to mean they didn't take any time. You misflagged and so of course. It should not, it should not take time. It should just take the time, which is the proper thing to do, to polarise, to do the experiment this time. But there should be no transformation time at all. And as far as I think, this is how the experiment goes, which is assumed in the experiment. So this provides the liminal velocities in a very easy way, it seems to me. I don't know if this would count for a lot of physical, so-called classical physics. One implication of this is, of course, that there is no classical physics. No classical physics at all. version of emasculated or whatever, or a little bit, anyway, minimize one dimension, less surface state, then this must be a completely quantum world, must be an utterly quantum world. And one of the arguments in the papers is that deep coherence doesn't lead to semi-classified states, but just these are all other objects, quantum objects, with the vanished off-diagonals, as Gelbenhardt said, being bulk stored, stored in the bulk, as information states, of course. And this, of course, leads then to the other scandalous implication, that then, of course, you cannot stick with a lot of informational states and a bit of physical states, then in the end, physics is an illusion, but some even easily break up like this. So it must be the, it should be the information perspective, it really would do that much work. You know, in effect, afterwards, you know, I was very impressed by myself when I stumbled

1:02:30 at this and then came to this conclusion. In fact, Michael was, it is simply an utilization of the holographic principle. A bit connected with this under the center space thing. and to give you a little more poetic word of this, so in a sense we are on the outside of Plato's cave. And this is a little bit of a semi-transparent encapsulation. there's a semi-transparent encapsulation that we are living on the outside of Prahal's cave so this would be I think with such a splendid collecting ending we won't have any more questions I'm afraid