This is an invited contribution to a special issue of Interdisciplinary
Science Reviews honoring Sir Roger Penrose. In it, I argue that standard quantum theory faces serious anomalies that can only be rectified by including real, physical reduction currently lacking in its traditionally accepted/entrenched formulation.
Quantum Theory Needs (and probably has) Real Reduction
Published
Transactional Interpretation 
This is a really wonderful paper that makes very important distinctions.
What tends to be overlooked in all of this is the requirement for expressing the Schrödinger Equation and quantum dynamics in general using imaginary numbers, which is not a requirement in classical Newtonian mechanics. Why? What are the real underlying reasons for this?
See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-falls-apart-without-imaginary-numbers/#:~:text=In%20standard%20quantum%20theory%2C%20the,of%20complex%20numbers%20called%20operators.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-physics-imaginary-numbers-math-reality
And of all of the approaches to understanding the implications of quantum physics, the Transactional Interpretation is one of the only approaches that takes this requirement fully into account. I am presuming that Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory—in its controversial time-symmetry—also recognizes this same issue.
And this has very significant philosophical implications for the whole process-oriented holistic approach of the Direct Action Theory… as has been discussed by Marco Forgione in a paper examining the philosophical underpinnings of the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory of radiation.
See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219820300988
When you begin to put this together with Robert Rosen’s ‘relational biology’ in which he shows that ‘closed causal loops’ operating on a temporal continuum are unique features of ‘complex organisms’ that are not found in ‘simple mechanisms’—that living organisms are categorically distinct from fabricated mechanisms, Francisco Varela’s ‘Calculus of Self-Reference’ for characterizing the functionality living autopoietic organisms and its requirement for the inclusion of imaginary numbers, and G Spencer Brown’s ‘Laws of Form’ in which the author builds a ‘calculus of distinction’ in which ‘re-entry into the form’ is shown to be associated with the incorporation of imaginary numbers as a means of dealing with and resolving paradoxical statements through the introduction of ‘time’, the significance of the incorporation of imaginary numbers becomes more clear.
See: http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/VarelaCSR.pdf
And see Walter Tydecks discussion of G Spencer Brown’s ‘theory of re-entry’ presented in the final chapters of ‘Laws of Form’…
http://www.tydecks.info/online/spencer-brown_e_reentry.html
What quantum physics and its requirement for imaginary numbers is telling us is that the mechanical formalism of classical Newtonian mechanics is woefully inadequate for the description of continually evolving natural systems, which are fundamentally ‘organismic’ (and NOT mechanical) in manifesting ‘Rosennian complexity’ rather than the mathematically attractive ‘ontology of states’ that is characteristic of mechanisms that partition into ‘states’ and ‘laws’, which becomes manifest through the requirement for the incorporation of imaginary numbers into the description of their inherently cyclical dynamics.
As Rosen makes clear in Chapter 4 of ‘Essays on Life Itself’, organismic functionality, or ‘effectiveness’, is NOT computable nor is it algorithmic as is the case for fabricated mechanisms.
Quantum physics is not about ‘mechanisms’. It is about living ‘organisms’. And ‘organisms’, as such, have the capacity to ‘trans-act’ as intentional agents.
This is a really wonderful paper that makes very important distinctions and clarifications.
What tends to be overlooked in all of this is that there is a basic requirement for expressing the Schrödinger Equation and quantum dynamics in general using imaginary numbers, which is NOT a requirement in classical Newtonian mechanics. Why?
What are the real underlying reasons for this? I think this is an important issue, and it is one that implies, in my opinion, the reality of trans-action that is bilaterally ‘negotiated’ prior to actualization.
See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-falls-apart-without-imaginary-numbers/#:~:text=In%20standard%20quantum%20theory%2C%20the,of%20complex%20numbers%20called%20operators.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-physics-imaginary-numbers-math-reality
And of all of the approaches to understanding the implications of quantum physics, including the requirement for imaginary numbers, the Transactional Interpretation is one of the only approaches that I know of which takes this requirement fully into account. I am presuming that Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory—along with its controversial time-symmetry—also recognizes this same issue.
And this all has very significant philosophical implications for the whole process-oriented holistic approach of the Direct Action Theory… as has been discussed by Marco Forgione in a paper examining the philosophical underpinnings of the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory of radiation upon which the Transactional Interpretation is based.
See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219820300988
When you begin to put this together with Robert Rosen’s ‘relational biology’ in which he shows that ‘closed causal loops’ operating on a temporal continuum are unique features of ‘complex organisms’ that are not found in ‘simple mechanisms’—that living organisms are categorically distinct from fabricated mechanisms, with Francisco Varela’s ‘Calculus of Self-Reference’ for characterizing the functionality living autopoietic organisms and its requirement for the inclusion of imaginary numbers, and with G Spencer Brown’s ‘Laws of Form’ in which the author builds a ‘calculus of distinction’ in which ‘re-entry into the form’ is shown to be associated with the incorporation of imaginary numbers as a means of dealing with and resolving paradoxical statements through the introduction of ‘time’ that allows for ‘re-entry into the form’–leaving the set and then re-entering it, the significance of the incorporation of imaginary numbers becomes more clear.
See: http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/VarelaCSR.pdf
And see Walter Tydecks discussion of G Spencer Brown’s ‘theory of re-entry’ presented in the final chapters of his book, ‘Laws of Form’…
http://www.tydecks.info/online/spencer-brown_e_reentry.html
What quantum physics and its requirement for imaginary numbers is telling us is that the mechanical formalism of classical Newtonian mechanics is woefully inadequate (Rosen calls it an insufficiency of ‘entailment’ power compared with that of living organisms) for the description of continually evolving natural systems, which are fundamentally ‘organismic’ (and NOT mechanical) in manifesting ‘Rosennian complexity’ rather than the alternative of the mathematically attractive ‘ontology of states’ that is characteristic of mechanisms that partition nicely into ‘states’ and deterministic ‘laws’. This clear distinction between living organisms and fabricated mechanisms becomes manifest through the requirement for the incorporation of imaginary numbers into the description of the inherent cyclically continuous dynamics at the heart of what differentiates an organism from a mechanism. As Robert Rosen shows in his theoretical ‘relational’ biology.
As Rosen makes clear in Chapter 4 of ‘Essays on Life Itself’, organismic functionality, or ‘effectiveness’, is NOT computable nor is it algorithmic as is the case for fabricated mechanisms. Organisms are ‘context-dependent’ and inherently adaptive. Mechanisms are not.
Quantum physics is NOT about ‘mechanisms’. It is about natural systems characterized as living ‘organisms’. And ‘organisms’, as such, have the capacity to ‘trans-act’ as intentional agents. Which is, I think, what makes the Transactional Interpretation so deeply attractive, IMHO.
Sorry about the duplication of my comment due to an editing error… Here is a restatement of the comment without the unintended duplication…
This is a really wonderful paper that makes very important distinctions and clarifications.
What tends to be overlooked in all of this is that there is a basic requirement for expressing the Schrödinger Equation and quantum dynamics in general using imaginary numbers, which is NOT a requirement in classical Newtonian mechanics. Why? What are the real underlying reasons for this? I think this is an important issue, and it is one that implies, in my opinion, the reality of trans-action that is bilaterally ‘negotiated’ prior to actualization.
See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-falls-apart-without-imaginary-numbers/#:~:text=In%20standard%20quantum%20theory%2C%20the,of%20complex%20numbers%20called%20operators.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-physics-imaginary-numbers-math-reality
And of all of the approaches to understanding the implications of quantum physics, including the requirement for imaginary numbers, the Transactional Interpretation is one of the only approaches that I know of which takes this requirement fully into account. I am presuming that the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory—along with its controversial time-symmetry—also recognizes this same issue.
And this all has very significant and deep philosophical implications for the whole process-oriented holistic approach of the Direct Action Theory… as has been discussed by Marco Forgione in a paper examining the philosophical underpinnings of the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory of radiation upon which the Transactional Interpretation is based.
See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219820300988
When you begin to put this together with Robert Rosen’s ‘relational biology’ in which he shows that ‘closed causal loops’ operating on a temporal continuum are unique features of ‘complex organisms’ that are not found in ‘simple mechanisms’—ie. that living organisms are categorically distinct from fabricated mechanisms, with Francisco Varela’s ‘Calculus of Self-Reference’ for characterizing the functionality of living autopoietic organisms and its requirement for the inclusion of imaginary numbers, and with G Spencer Brown’s ‘Laws of Form’ in which the author builds a ‘calculus of distinction’ in which ‘re-entry into the form’ is shown to be associated with the incorporation of imaginary numbers as a means of dealing with and resolving paradoxical statements through the introduction of ‘time’ as a meditational factor that allows for ‘re-entry into the form’–leaving the set and then re-entering it, the significance of the incorporation of imaginary numbers–I think– becomes more clear.
See: http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/VarelaCSR.pdf
And see Walter Tydecks discussion of G Spencer Brown’s ‘theory of re-entry’ that was presented in the final chapters of his book, ‘Laws of Form’…
http://www.tydecks.info/online/spencer-brown_e_reentry.html
What quantum physics and its requirement for imaginary numbers is telling us is that the mechanical formalism of classical Newtonian mechanics is woefully inadequate (Rosen calls it an insufficiency of ‘entailment’ power compared with that of living organisms) for the description of continually evolving natural systems, which are fundamentally ‘organismic’ (and NOT mechanical) in manifesting ‘Rosennian complexity’ rather than the alternative of the mathematically attractive ‘ontology of states’ that is characteristic of mechanisms that partition nicely into ‘states’ and deterministic ‘laws’. This clear distinction between living organisms and fabricated mechanisms becomes manifest through the requirement for the incorporation of imaginary numbers into the description of the inherent cyclically continuous dynamics at the heart of what differentiates an organism from a mechanism. As Robert Rosen shows in his theoretical ‘relational’ biology.
As Rosen makes clear in Chapter 4 of ‘Essays on Life Itself’, organismic functionality, or ‘effectiveness’, is NOT computable nor is it algorithmic as is the case for fabricated mechanisms. Organisms are ‘context-dependent’ and inherently adaptive. Mechanisms are not.
Quantum physics is NOT about ‘mechanisms’. It is about natural systems characterized as living ‘organisms’. And ‘organisms’, as such, have the capacity to ‘trans-act’ as intentional agents. Which is, I think, what makes the Transactional Interpretation so deeply attractive, IMHO.