On Sunday, November 24, 2024 at 9:34:01 PM UTC-7 PGC wrote:
Barandes' work on non-Markovian quantum dynamics is undeniably sophisticated and offers potential applications (I appreciate the post, thanks), but it exemplifies a recurring issue in alleged foundational inquiry. In *"A New Formulation of Quantum Theory,"* for instance, his "kinematical axiom", that he states as a physical axiom on the slide, assumes natural numbers and sets—*abstract or metaphysical concepts, not physical concepts*—while presenting them as part of a physical ontology (see minute 11 of the video). This conflation risks undermining the rigor and clarity required in foundational inquiry. Quantum mechanics, in any interpretation (digital mechanism aside), cannot fully explain why it appears as it does to specific subjects without a precise account of what a subject is and how their interaction with the system is modeled. Questions like "Why collapse?" or "Why Many Worlds?" demand assumptions about the subject, their properties, and their relationship to both the physical and mathematical structures they interpret. Without this clarity, foundational reasoning risks either circularity or ambiguity. Foundational work should strive for clarity and honesty in its assumptions before reaching for elegance. It’s not enough to say "this works, it's sophisticated"—we have to address and state why it works for a subject with specific properties xyz in relation to the precise quantum or classical frameworks in play. Without this, we risk getting lost in the weeds of sophistication, leaving foundational gaps open and unexamined. Barandes is right: examine the obvious things we take for granted; too bad he didn't apply that to his axiom mentioned above. If Bruno's digital mechanism strikes you as an implausible foundation, *then what exactly are the assumptions underlying your stance* regarding existence of a subject, with which properties, experiencing which kind of physics and why; how QM, randomness, classicality, consciousness or lack thereof, qualia or not etc. manifest and emerge or don't? *Your philosophy, or shall we say point of view, is an example of the perfect as the enemy of the good. If Euclid had waited to satisfy your criteria, we wouldn't have plane geometry, and we'd still be waiting for the theorem of Pythagoras. Based on a voluminous catalog of passed experience, every successful theory begins with some undefined concepts. AG* -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fd2ae4b3-0681-49bd-97f9-6076b664ed3en%40googlegroups.com.
