I don't know. Eric's pointing out (I think) both the bootstrapping concept (writing a compiler in the language it compiles) *and* the ontological status of levels in, eg, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Things like state space reconstruction and the holographic principle seem to flow directly from Nick's objection to nature's phenomena being generated by a language/mechanism that's beyond experience.
Maybe the state/observable distinction targets those issues well, even if it only implies them. On 4/30/19 1:41 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Eric writes: > > < The important consequence of this understanding is that we have > mathematical formalizations of the concept of state and of observable, and > they are two different kinds of concept. It is precisely that both can be > defined, that the theory needs both to function in its complete form, and > that the definitions are different, that expands our understanding of > concepts of state and observable. > > > It seems to me that it is kicking the can down the road. It enables > communication but it is not clear it drives toward a resolution of what is > going on. I have heard other (computational) physicists claim that "all > physics is local", which may or may not be true depending on what the > calculator chooses to believe. It seems to keep the two concepts clear one > cannot make that commitment. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
