On 19 December 2013 13:35, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 19 December 2013 12:16, Stephen Paul King >> <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to >>> "...perform a particular calculation"? This is the problem, we figure >>> out ways to make ourselves believe that we can "know" all that there is to >>> know about the world given some theory (mathematical or other). Can we >>> gaze upon the space of solutions of SR, etc? No! But we can get some pretty >>> good ideas exploring exactly how the "particular calculations" work. One >>> has to plug in a set of numbers that include the specification of >>> the inertial frame of reference (which involves the masses and velocities >>> of the objects that are considered in the calculation). One then "turns the >>> crank" and out pops a solution that is true* for that particular >>> inertial frame*. >>> >>> My point is not about any kind of "specialness", *the same condition >>> follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no >>> such thing, mathematically, as a "view from nowhere" or, equivalently, for >>> a "god's eye point of view." God is dead and so is his "view". >>> For QM, things are even more restrictive: one has to assume that the >>> Hilbert space of the wave function is *finite* and a choice of the basis >>> of that space <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_(linear_algebra)>must be >>> done. That's the math... >>> >>> That isn't quite correct. The "view from nowhere" *is *the equations. >> > > LOL, nice semantic trick. A mathematical system is a "view". Seriously! > That argument is rubbish. Nagel was great on some of his stuff, but that > argument have serious problems. > It isn't a semantic trick. That's what a scientific theory is - a general description of the system in question (e.g. the universe or a hydrogen atom). If you expect more than that you are deluding yourself, because that's exactly what you get. The equations are general, hence they aren't taking any specific view / frame of reference / basis. > >> >>>> I think the use of the word "bias" in the context of reference frames >>>> and suchlike is misleading. >>>> >>> >>> Not at all. It is a bias. Anything a choice is made from a non-singular >>> collection of possibilities, the result is some subset of that collection. >>> If no member is "left out" then we could say that the choice is unbiased, >>> but what kind of choice is the one that pulls a "I'lll take them all!" when >>> "all of them" can not be simultaneously chosen? Nature works that way, >>> there is no such thing as an unbiased choice, therefore... >>> >>> "Bias" as normally used has various psychological implications that >> don't apply to calculations in physics. It might be better to use a word >> without such connotations (frame of reference or basis, for example). >> > > Semantics... Could you offer a better word? > Frame of reference or basis. > > >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>>> That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher >>>>>>> dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is >>>>>>> we, >>>>>>> as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never >>>>>>> the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the >>>>>>> universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the >>>>>>> universe: this is cheating don't you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the >>>>>> universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best >>>>>> tangential and at worst a non sequitur. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah, but neglecting the "interpretation" and its selection bias - as if >>>>> it did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out. >>>>> >>>> >>>> As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist in the theory, only when a >>>> specific observer is making a specific measurement. >>>> >>> >>> OK, it doesn't exist in the theory, so where is it coming from? >>> >> >> From when a specific observer makes a specific measurement. The theory >> covers all possible "selection biases". Theories try very hard to be >> general in that sense. >> > > OK, so there it is: "...when a specific observer makes a specific > measurement". There does not exist an entity that can have states of > knowledge of something that cannot exist. There is no god and no view that > it, if it could exist, could have. Any reasoning that assumes otherwise is > wrong from the bang. > I can't parse the above. But to reiterate, a theory is a set of equations which tries to apply to the general case. When someone uses it in a specific situation, then they select a frame of reference. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We don't "extract sapience" (whatever that means) by inventing >>>>>> mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding >>>>>> verbiage >>>>>> about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of >>>>>> the >>>>>> world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account >>>>>> for >>>>>> our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if >>>>>> anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them >>>>>> to explain why. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Part of my research is looking at space-time as an emergent ordering >>>>> of events. People like Renata >>>>> Loll<http://www.hef.ru.nl/~rloll/Web/research/research.html>and Kevin >>>>> Knuth <http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0881> have some pretty good >>>>> arguments against the idea that space-time is something that "we are >>>>> embedded in". This "fishbowl" or "container" conceptualization of >>>>> space-time is just another version of the Laplacean vision... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't know about Kevin Knuth, what is he suggesting? Renate Loll is I >>>> believe an exponent of CDT, which as far as I know doesn't make any changes >>>> to the notion that events and so on are embedded in space time. >>>> >>> >>> Read Kevin's paper that I linked to his name. Its neat! There is a video >>> of a talk that he gave on the subject. The Q&A session at the end is very >>> interesting. >>> >> >> The abstract is enough to tell me that it doesn't make any changes to the >> idea of events being embedded in space time. Indeed he's trying to recover >> that concept from his chains of events. It sounds similar to CDT in that >> way. >> > > Watch it. Kevin reasons very slowly and carefully to a very astonishing > result. > Unfortunately I don't have time for slow careful reasoning, can we skip ahead to the astonishing result? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
