Conference

Motivated by the conceptual puzzles of quantum theory and related areas of physics, I describe a rigorous and minimal “proof of principle” theory in which observers are fundamental and in which the physical world is a (provably) emergent phenomenon. This is a reversal of the standard view, which holds that physical theories ought to describe the objective evolution of a unique external world, with observers or agents as derived concepts that play no fundamental role whatsoever. Using insights from algorithmic information theory (AIT), I show that this approach admits to address several foundational puzzles that are difficult to address via standard approaches. This includes the measurement and Boltzmann brain problems, and problems related to the computer simulation of observers. Without assuming the existence of an external world from the outset, the resulting theory actually predicts that there is one as a consequence of AIT — in particular, a world with simple, computable, probabilistic laws on which different observers typically (but not always) agree. This approach represents a consistent but highly unfamiliar picture of the world, leading to a new perspective from which to approach some questions in the foundations of physics.

The observer is implicitly present in the measurement postulates of quantum theory. However the observer can also be modeled as a quantum system interacting with other quantum systems. A theory where every action implicitly undertaken by an agent (such as a measurement or preparation) can be explicitly modeled as non-classical systems interacting is called a universal theory. By modifying the measurement postulates of quantum theory (and preserving the other postulates) we create theories where the observer can still be explicitly modeled as a pure quantum state, but where the implicit observer is different. We argue that any modification of the measurement postulates of quantum theory gives a theory which is not universal. That is to say there are certain actions implicitly carried out by an agent which cannot be explicitly modeled.

Through the last 20-25 years “we won” many battles in the evolution of FLOSS into mainstream. No one can ignore today the role of open source in software, hardware, high-tech and even business development. However everything seems to be open today: Open Data, Open Innovation, Open Government, Open Research...what do we mean by that? Has “open” the same meaning in all of them? How reliable are the results from such openness? What about policies and science and technologies designed on top of them? This talk will share Open Parallel’s five years journey through the pre-construction challenges of the largest scientific instrument of the next decade -the Square Kilometre Array radio-telescope (SKA). Will present how a non-central country as New Zealand has a say on its design plus how open source software will be core to its success. Being involved in the OS side of the SKA, will also share some concerns around black swans and ask a few questions around cybersecurity. Open Science? Yeah, right.

The Open Science movement focuses on the broad benefits to the scientific enterprise, but its success will depend on the actions of individual scientists. Unless the short-term benefits to the researcher outweigh the costs, only the most altruistic will open up their research efforts to the world. Arguments based on hypothetical future benefits don’t carry much weight, and calls for better tools appear to be mainly driven by tool-designers, not potential users. I’ll start with two brief case histories (#arseniclife and Apple Academic Press), and then consider what the immediate costs and benefits are and how we might shift the balance between them.