Re: subjective reality
Hi Godfrey, Le 18-août-05, à 20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : [BM] OK. Now I agree with Lee, and many on the FOR and the Everything lists that Everett (many-worlds + decoherence already) constitutes a solution of the measurement problem. All measurements are just interaction, and then all states are relative. As I said, it seems to me that this is even more clear in the integral formulation of QM where F = ma can be deduced from the sum on all histories. But this is going a little bit out of topics, and is not needed to understand the comp derivation. We can come back on this latter. [GK] Here we part company. MWI (I prefer to call it Everett's Interpretation or EQM) is NOT a solution to the measurement problem of QM but an Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that does not lead to that problem! It does however have a tripartite problem of its own that, in my opinion, is just the measurement problem blown up. In any case what you say afterwords does not follow (from EQM or QM). There are non-interactive measurements that people have been looking into for a while now (Dicke, Elitzur-Vaidman, etc...). I am sure you guys touched on these sometime ago... But all of this is irrelevant for my purpose at hand which is for you to commit to the proposition that No-YD: no Bruno! We agree it is not relevant for our purpose! Just two words: As a logician I don't consider Everett proposed a new interpretation of quantum mechanics, but a new formulation of quantum mechanics. It is really SWE + comp. (as opposed to the Copenhagen formulation which is SWE + an unintelligible dualist theory of mind. Then what I say can be sum up like this: Everett theory is redundant: SWE follows from comp. But this is another thread, and we can come back on Everett later. No YD, no Bruno!?! You make me anxious :) SWE : Schroedinger Wave Equation YD: Saying Yes to a doctor who propose you an artificial digital generalized brain. First axiom of comp. (Some people complains out-of-line for the acronyms, so I repeat them once by mail). It seems to me that you are weaseling out of it but I don't quite care if you take refuge in another Everett World. That would be a cop out and I am sure you know it. I want you and I digitised IN THIS WORLD! I don't care for copies! Well: not of copies IN THIS WORLD, I guess. Giving that that is really the by-product of saying YES to the DOCTOR (YD). [GK] I don't much care what you can deduce from COMP, Bruno. I care that COMP=YD+CT+AR and that shooting down YD would shoot down COMP. You could very well deduce from COMP my non-existence if YD is false. Only if YD is *proved* false!!! (I could deduce your inexistence from the SWE if any TOE (theory of everything) which supposed SWE true, if SWE is false!). You are saying something very general here! BM: Ouh la la. You are close to the 1004 fallacy (asking for more precise definition than the reasoning itself). At the start you can use the term axioms, postulates, theses, premises, assumptions, hypotheses, etc.. in a similar way. [GK] I think you get my point. I am not asking for precision at all. I am pointing out that thesis and doctrines are not hypotheses tout court. These three assumptions do not have the same epistemic status and it is misleading to call them the same. If you don't like it, than acknowledge my pragmatics: if your point-of-view is falsifiable it should be so without compromising either CT and AR which stand very well on their own as you underscore below: Mmhhh... This is your opinion, and perhaps mine. But not of most people to which my proof is addressed (computer scientist). [GK] Agreed, than . In any case one unassailable counterexample would shoot down CT, deep and Kleene as it is (:-) Exactly! [BM] Well, I have decided to put it explicitly, because, in front of my reasoning, some people cop out simply by saying Ah, but you are a platonist!. So I prefer to say it at once. I agree with you it is a sort of cop out. Now, although 99, % of the mathematician are platonist during the week, most like to pretends they are not (the week-end!). [GK] Ditto. Hope you are not serious! (skiip) (1) YD is obviously independent from CT and AR 'course. [GK] Good! Well, you will perhaps accuse me of weaseling out again, but thinking twice, I believe I have answer too quickly in the sense that for saying yes for an artificial *digital* brain to a Doctor you need to know a bit what digital means, and for this you need CT (Church Thesis), and for this, I think, you need AR (Arithmetical Realism). But as you say, CT and AR are mainly bodyguards of YD. (2) GK: CT and AR stand no chance of being falsified empirically (or we both like them that way, which is the same). [BM] I give the opportunity to make comp false in more than one way. If you read the Maudlin paper, you will see that he
Re: Naive Realism and QM
Serafino, I think I get the gist of what you are saying but it is not quite the case. There is no energy flux directly associated with wave-functions (like with electomagnetic or mechanical waves) but is a probability density and a probability flux associated with the square of linear functionals of the wave-function. The physical quantities (observables) pertaining to any physical system described by the WF typically do not have fixed values assigned by the theory but only expectation values, i.e. probabilities of being found in one among many of their possible eigenvalues. Quantum Mechanics tells you how to compute these expectation values but only specific experiments assign one among them to a specific system. If I understand what you are trying to say below there is indeed a way of, a posteriori, trying to build a more or less classical picture of a propagation of a beam or even a single particle (represented by a wave packet or something like it). That is what is called a local hidden variable model for QM and it works fairly well for a single isolated degree of freedom. But, as it turns out, none of these clever cartoons can be used to fully interpret the quantum description; this is not merely the result of a theorem but something which has been verified empirically numerous times by now. Come to think of it, even my correction to Lee is in need of correction because QM is not just about amplitudes! The phase relations between wave functions play a very central role in the non local phenomena (i.e. Berry and Aharonov-Bohm effects) so the myth of just amplitudes should be dispelled by now. Best regards, Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: scerir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:55:51 +0200 Subject: Re: Naive Realism and QM Godfrey: My point, if I can break it down a bit, is that the amplitudes correspond, not to things but to processes and that what the amplitudes let you compute are relative probabilities for the occurrences of such processes. Maybe. Amplitudes of (whatever) waves satisfy linear equations. So, amplitudes combine linearly when several paths are - in principle - possible. On the contrary, the intensity of waves, that is to say the energy flux, is quadratic in the field amplitudes. So, intensities do not combine linearly. If we imagine there is a relation between the energy flux and the number of particles crossing a given (unit) area (this can be the quantum principle, or the quantum postulate) we also imagine there is a relation between the energy flux - quadratic in the field amplitudes - and the probability for those particles crossing that (unit) area. We can also imagine now there is only one particle flying Regards, serafino Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Re: subjective reality
Hi Hal, From what you say below I am not able to determine whether your model is identical or distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am interested in so let me ask you: Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you still dance if that is the case? I am asking because unfalsifiable models turn out to be a lot less interesting than falsifiable ones as I am sure you understand Best regards, Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:34:48 -0400 Subject: Re: subjective reality With regard to YD I have proposed in other posts that our universe consists of a set of discrete points that are when in their neutral locations arranged on a face centered cubic grid. Each point is confined to a region of discrete locations that surround its neutral location in the grid. I like this grid because its symmetries appear to allow a set of first order oscillations of the points within their regions in a unit cell consisting of 12 points around one with all triples being on straight lines that pass through the central point to represent the basic particles of the Standard Model. I call such oscillations a [small] dance. A [small] dance can move through the grid but individual points can not. Larger dances (such as a SAS) consist of semi stable associations of nearby [small] dances. The entire grid [universe] changes state when a point in a region asynchronously polls its 12 neighbors and assumes a new location in its region based on the results. It is a type of Cellular Automaton [CA]. At this level TD seems straight forward since there is no change at all. The approach is compatible with CT since some CA are capable of universal computation and the universe it models can contain SAS [the done effectively part] since large dances can be self interactive. The other things that are in my model which is derived from my is is not definitional approach is that the imbedding system: 1) Is one in which all possible states of all universes preexist [multi world and the model's link to AR], 2) Is randomly dynamic in terms of which states have instantations of reality [noise in the flow of reality] (a nice explanation of the accelerating expansion of our universe [additional points as part of the noise] recently observed), 3) In the dynamic, adjacent states can have instantations of reality that overlap [the flow of consciousness]. In the end then I must say that it seems my model contains comp. I indicated to Bruno some time ago that I thought we were to some degree convergent. Hal Ruhl Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Re: subjective reality
Hi, I apologize if I misunderstood your differents posts here as I'm not an english native but I find very insulting your way to discuss with people... Either you have an argument to the YD hypothesis, either you haven't... stop turning around the hole... Quentin Le Vendredi 19 Août 2005 16:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Hi Hal, From what you say below I am not able to determine whether your model is identical or distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am interested in so let me ask you: Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you still dance if that is the case? I am asking because unfalsifiable models turn out to be a lot less interesting than falsifiable ones as I am sure you understand Best regards, Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:34:48 -0400 Subject: Re: subjective reality With regard to YD I have proposed in other posts that our universe consists of a set of discrete points that are when in their neutral locations arranged on a face centered cubic grid. Each point is confined to a region of discrete locations that surround its neutral location in the grid. I like this grid because its symmetries appear to allow a set of first order oscillations of the points within their regions in a unit cell consisting of 12 points around one with all triples being on straight lines that pass through the central point to represent the basic particles of the Standard Model. I call such oscillations a [small] dance. A [small] dance can move through the grid but individual points can not. Larger dances (such as a SAS) consist of semi stable associations of nearby [small] dances. The entire grid [universe] changes state when a point in a region asynchronously polls its 12 neighbors and assumes a new location in its region based on the results. It is a type of Cellular Automaton [CA]. At this level TD seems straight forward since there is no change at all. The approach is compatible with CT since some CA are capable of universal computation and the universe it models can contain SAS [the done effectively part] since large dances can be self interactive. The other things that are in my model which is derived from my is is not definitional approach is that the imbedding system: 1) Is one in which all possible states of all universes preexist [multi world and the model's link to AR], 2) Is randomly dynamic in terms of which states have instantations of reality [noise in the flow of reality] (a nice explanation of the accelerating expansion of our universe [additional points as part of the noise] recently observed), 3) In the dynamic, adjacent states can have instantations of reality that overlap [the flow of consciousness]. In the end then I must say that it seems my model contains comp. I indicated to Bruno some time ago that I thought we were to some degree convergent. Hal Ruhl Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Re: subjective reality
Hi Godfrey, As you wrote in reply to others, local deterministic models seem to be ruled out. The class of all formally describable models is much larger than that of only the local deterministic models. So, although 't Hooft may be proved wrong (if loopholes like pre-determinism don't save him), non-local models can reproduce QM. Saibal - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 06:07 PM Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi Saibal, Yes, trans-Plankian physics is likely to be quite different from our cis-plankian one. However I think the main reason 't Hooft claims the no-go theorems of quantum physics are in small print is because his reading glasses are no longer current :-), I am afraid. His arguments for the prevalence of simple deterministic models at this scaled have varied over the years (as his little examples) and some of these are quite clever, I'll agree. However, as you very well point out, any transplankian theory worth looking into has to reproduce a recognizable picture of the cisplankian world we know and that means: quantum mechanics (non-locality and all) in some discernible limit (and General Relativity too in some other limit) and all indications is that this cannot be done from deterministic models alone. 't Hooft has been working around this for the last 10 years or so and he doesn't have much to show for it. Considering that it took him less than 2 years to come up with a renormalization prescription for non-abelian gauge theories in his youth I suspect god's dice are loaded against him this time. However he is always fascinating to read and hear. I saw him at Harvard this winter for the Colemanfest and he had the most fabulous animations... Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:34:19 +0200 Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi Godfrey, 't Hooft's work is motivated by problems one encounters in Planck scale physics. 't Hooft has argued that the no go theorems precluding deterministic models come with some ''small print''. Physicists working on ''conventional ways'' to unite gravity with QM are forced to make such bold assumptions that one should now also question this ''small print''. As you wrote, 't Hooft has only looked at some limited type of models. It seems to me that much more is possible. I have never tried to do any serious work in this area myself (I'm too busy with other things). I would say that anything goes as long as you can explain the macroscopic world. One could imagine that a stochastic treatment of some deterministic theory could yield the standard model, but now with the status of the quantum fields as fictitional ghosts. If photons and electrons etc. don't really exists, then you can say that this is consistent with ''no local hidden variables''. Saibal Hi Saibal, You are correct that Gerard 't Hooft is one of the world exponents in QFTh. But Quantum Field Theory is but one small piece of QM and one in which non-local effects do not play a direct role (as of yet). Understandably 't Hooft's forays into Quantum Mechanics have not, however, been very insightful as he himself confesses (you can check his humorous slides in the Kavli Institute symposium of last year on the Future of Physics). So far he has supplied mostly some interesting simple CA models from which one can indeed extract something akin to superpositions but that in no way bypasses the basic facts of entanglement and non-local correlations. He may very well be the very last hold out for a deterministic (an thus classically mechanistic) point-of-view but I would not count him out just yet. If any one around has the brain to deal with this its him! That much I will grant you... (Now I have met 't Hooft! 't Hooft was a neighbor of mine and I tell you: Bruno is no 't Hooft! ;- ) Best regards Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:11:30 +0200 Subject: Re: subjective reality Godfrey Kurtz wrote More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any non-quantum mechanistic view of the physical world. If you don't get that, than maybe you don't get a lot of other things, Bruno. Sorry if this sounds contemptuous. It is meant to be. There aren't many people with a better understanding of QFT than 't Hooft. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0409021
Re: subjective reality
Hi Bruno, OK. I think we are making progress. I will start the other thread after this message as I don't really have more obvious divergences from you and you are kind enough to indulge me in this little diversion. As before I will erase the obvious points of agreement below... Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:48:06 +0200 Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi Godfrey, Le 18-août-05, à 20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : (skipped) [BM] No YD, no Bruno!?! You make me anxious :) [GK] I am sorry! That was very callous of me! I really did not mean to imply that you would be eliminated by my argument! Much on the contrary, I am hoping you will be... illuminated (;-) !!! [BM] SWE : Schroedinger Wave Equation YD: Saying Yes to a doctor who propose you an artificial digital generalized brain. First axiom of comp. (Some people complains out-of-line for the acronyms, so I repeat them once by mail). It seems to me that you are weaseling out of it but I don't quite care if you take refuge in another Everett World. That would be a cop out and I am sure you know it. I want you and I digitised IN THIS WORLD! I don't care for copies! [BM] Well: not of copies IN THIS WORLD, I guess. Giving that that is really the by-product of saying YES to the DOCTOR (YD). [GK] I would like to leave copies out of the YD because I think those would actually invalidate the premise. If you ran into a copy of yourself in the street you may suspect that something is amiss in your world! [GK] I don't much care what you can deduce from COMP, Bruno. I care that COMP=YD+CT+AR and that shooting down YD would shoot down COMP. You could very well deduce from COMP my non-existence if YD is false. Only if YD is *proved* false!!! (I could deduce your inexistence from the SWE if any TOE (theory of everything) which supposed SWE true, if SWE is false!). You are saying something very general here! [GK] What I propose to do is to show you that your premise, YD, is false. That allows me to dismiss anything you say based on that premise. That is actually not general at all but extremely specific. From here on I will make no comment on any sentence you preface with But from COMP (or YD) I can prove that... . Nothing personal, please understand. BM: Ouh la la. You are close to the 1004 fallacy (asking for more precise definition than the reasoning itself). At the start you can use the term axioms, postulates, theses, premises, assumptions, hypotheses, etc.. in a similar way. [GK] I think you get my point. I am not asking for precision at all. I am pointing out that thesis and doctrines are not hypotheses tout court. These three assumptions do not have the same epistemic status and it is misleading to call them the same. If you don't like it, than acknowledge my pragmatics: if your point-of-view is falsifiable it should be so without compromising either CT and AR which stand very well on their own as you underscore below: [BM] Mmhhh... This is your opinion, and perhaps mine. But not of most people to which my proof is addressed (computer scientist). [GK] Oh I would not worry! Computer scientists are by, now, used to have their hopes dashed (;-). And you strike me as a real grown-up since you are not afraid of facing up to empirical testing! (skipped) [BM] Well, I have decided to put it explicitly, because, in front of my reasoning, some people cop out simply by saying Ah, but you are a platonist!. So I prefer to say it at once. I agree with you it is a sort of cop out. Now, although 99, % of the mathematician are platonist during the week, most like to pretends they are not (the week-end!). [GK] Ditto. Hope you are not serious! [GK] Sorry! Ditto over here in the States is used as a note of agreement. (skipped) [BM] Well, you will perhaps accuse me of weaseling out again, but thinking twice, I believe I have answer too quickly in the sense that for saying yes for an artificial *digital* brain to a Doctor you need to know a bit what digital means, and for this you need CT (Church Thesis), and for this, I think, you need AR (Arithmetical Realism). But as you say, CT and AR are mainly bodyguards of YD. [GK] Oh. No problem there. Maybe I did not make it clear enough. What I am suggesting is that we (you and I) agree implicitly that CT and AR are unassailably true for the purposes of my argument! I will in fact need that to be the case at the very least for CT. As for digital brain I am sure we can reach some agreement on that. (skipped) [GK] Bruno, you are weaseling out again, here! Let me ask you this in clear terms again: Can you, Yes or No, derive your whole grand manege from CT and AR alone? Because if it is a yes here I will give you the Oscar
Re: subjective reality
Dear Quentin, Je m'excuse. It is not my intension to insult anyone least of all you since I don't quite remember having directed any message to you personally! I have used some irony in discussing with Bruno but meant no harm by it. My feeling from reading the different posts is that people in this list have some sense of humor and do not take their theories so seriously that any play around is taken in personal terms! I take turning around the hole to mean something like beating around the bush. In that case, I am afraid I cannot comply just yet. Please see my last message to Bruno. I am not bluffing, just hoping to break his bluff and I don't think he is insulted (Bruno?) --- To the rest of the crowd: if this is a generalized feeling, please let me know, and I will withdraw from the list. I surely don't want to ruffle any feathers! Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:15:47 +0200 Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi, I apologize if I misunderstood your differents posts here as I'm not an english native but I find very insulting your way to discuss with people... Either you have an argument to the YD hypothesis, either you haven't... stop turning around the hole... Quentin Le Vendredi 19 Août 2005 16:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Hi Hal, From what you say below I am not able to determine whether your model is identical or distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am interested in so let me ask you: Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you still dance if that is the case? I am asking because unfalsifiable models turn out to be a lot less interesting than falsifiable ones as I am sure you understand Best regards, Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:34:48 -0400 Subject: Re: subjective reality With regard to YD I have proposed in other posts that our universe consists of a set of discrete points that are when in their neutral locations arranged on a face centered cubic grid. Each point is confined to a region of discrete locations that surround its neutral location in the grid. I like this grid because its symmetries appear to allow a set of first order oscillations of the points within their regions in a unit cell consisting of 12 points around one with all triples being on straight lines that pass through the central point to represent the basic particles of the Standard Model. I call such oscillations a [small] dance. A [small] dance can move through the grid but individual points can not. Larger dances (such as a SAS) consist of semi stable associations of nearby [small] dances. The entire grid [universe] changes state when a point in a region asynchronously polls its 12 neighbors and assumes a new location in its region based on the results. It is a type of Cellular Automaton [CA]. At this level TD seems straight forward since there is no change at all. The approach is compatible with CT since some CA are capable of universal computation and the universe it models can contain SAS [the done effectively part] since large dances can be self interactive. The other things that are in my model which is derived from my is is not definitional approach is that the imbedding system: 1) Is one in which all possible states of all universes preexist [multi world and the model's link to AR], 2) Is randomly dynamic in terms of which states have instantations of reality [noise in the flow of reality] (a nice explanation of the accelerating expansion of our universe [additional points as part of the noise] recently observed), 3) In the dynamic, adjacent states can have instantations of reality that overlap [the flow of consciousness]. In the end then I must say that it seems my model contains comp. I indicated to Bruno some time ago that I thought we were to some degree convergent. Hal Ruhl Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Re: subjective reality
Hi Saibal, You are entirely correct about that. Non-local models can indeed reproduce QM. No surprise than that all the remaining approaches to the unification of physical theories still fighting it out (string/M theories, loop quantum gravity, twistor theory) are non-loca,l unlike the old QFTs. That is not the case with 't Hooft's CA models, of course. But he has later began to play with (deterministic) M-brane type ideas (since he started teaching string theory) and those may hold better promise. He is also no longer insisting on the pre-determinism loophole notion (at least the last time I heard him this year). Maybe he realized that made him sound a bit foolish... His web site is always entertaining: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/ Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:06:23 +0200 Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi Godfrey, As you wrote in reply to others, local deterministic models seem to be ruled out. The class of all formally describable models is much larger than that of only the local deterministic models. So, although 't Hooft may be proved wrong (if loopholes like pre-determinism don't save him), non-local models can reproduce QM. Saibal - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 06:07 PM Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi Saibal, Yes, trans-Plankian physics is likely to be quite different from our cis-plankian one. However I think the main reason 't Hooft claims the no-go theorems of quantum physics are in small print is because his reading glasses are no longer current :-), I am afraid. His arguments for the prevalence of simple deterministic models at this scaled have varied over the years (as his little examples) and some of these are quite clever, I'll agree. However, as you very well point out, any transplankian theory worth looking into has to reproduce a recognizable picture of the cisplankian world we know and that means: quantum mechanics (non-locality and all) in some discernible limit (and General Relativity too in some other limit) and all indications is that this cannot be done from deterministic models alone. 't Hooft has been working around this for the last 10 years or so and he doesn't have much to show for it. Considering that it took him less than 2 years to come up with a renormalization prescription for non-abelian gauge theories in his youth I suspect god's dice are loaded against him this time. However he is always fascinating to read and hear. I saw him at Harvard this winter for the Colemanfest and he had the most fabulous animations... Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:34:19 +0200 Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi Godfrey, 't Hooft's work is motivated by problems one encounters in Planck scale physics. 't Hooft has argued that the no go theorems precluding deterministic models come with some ''small print''. Physicists working on ''conventional ways'' to unite gravity with QM are forced to make such bold assumptions that one should now also question this ''small print''. As you wrote, 't Hooft has only looked at some limited type of models. It seems to me that much more is possible. I have never tried to do any serious work in this area myself (I'm too busy with other things). I would say that anything goes as long as you can explain the macroscopic world. One could imagine that a stochastic treatment of some deterministic theory could yield the standard model, but now with the status of the quantum fields as fictitional ghosts. If photons and electrons etc. don't really exists, then you can say that this is consistent with ''no local hidden variables''. Saibal Hi Saibal, You are correct that Gerard 't Hooft is one of the world exponents in QFTh. But Quantum Field Theory is but one small piece of QM and one in which non-local effects do not play a direct role (as of yet). Understandably 't Hooft's forays into Quantum Mechanics have not, however, been very insightful as he himself confesses (you can check his humorous slides in the Kavli Institute symposium of last year on the Future of Physics). So far he has supplied mostly some interesting simple CA models from which one can indeed extract something akin to superpositions but that in no way bypasses the basic facts of entanglement and non-local correlations. He may very well be the very last hold out for a deterministic (an thus classically mechanistic) point-of-view but I would not count him out just yet. If any one
[offtopic] Re: subjective reality
Dear, Le Vendredi 19 Août 2005 18:27, vous avez écrit : Dear Quentin, Je m'excuse. It is not my intension to insult anyone least of all you since I don't quite remember having directed any message to you personally! No, none directed to me... I don't know if it's my poor comprehension of english... but anyway I don't really like when people just want to show by acting as if they knew the real knowledge... I apologize for feeling it like that... But as it was not your intention. I would feel shame to ask you to unsubscribe, it wasn't at all my intention, just let the discussion stay sane (with a message like mine, I understand it 's not the better way for it to stay sane ;). Quentin
Re: [offtopic] Re: subjective reality
Hi Quentin, No harm done. I think I understand your comment and I fully agree that I sound like I am bluffing. But I still have hope that Bruno will come to his senses and accept my bargain (which is much less risky than the one his Doctor proposes, by the way!) I take it that French is your native language from your reply header. Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:48:48 +0200 Subject: [offtopic] Re: subjective reality Dear, Le Vendredi 19 Août 2005 18:27, vous avez écrit : Dear Quentin, Je m'excuse. It is not my intension to insult anyone least of all you since I don't quite remember having directed any message to you personally! No, none directed to me... I don't know if it's my poor comprehension of english... but anyway I don't really like when people just want to show by acting as if they knew the real knowledge... I apologize for feeling it like that... But as it was not your intention. I would feel shame to ask you to unsubscribe, it wasn't at all my intention, just let the discussion stay sane (with a message like mine, I understand it 's not the better way for it to stay sane ;). Quentin Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Re: subjective reality
Hi Godfrey: My model starts with what I describe as unavoidable definition - of the All and [simultaneously] the Nothing. Any definition defines a pair of two objects. The target object such as a flower [the is part of the pair] and an object that has the remainder of the list of all properties etc. of all possible objects [the is not part of the pair]. Generally the is not part of the pair is of little use. The All and the Nothing are an interesting is, is not definitional pair. The All is the entire list and the Nothing is the absence of the entire list. The Nothing is inherently incomplete and this results in the dynamic. This is a brief semi intro and I have posted on this model before as it has developed. Now the All part contains all possible states of all possible universes. This should include the one I believe represents ours. Therefore my All seems to contain universes that support YD and thus comp if Bruno is correct. To answer your questions as best I currently can: My model appears to contain YD, CT, and AR so if Bruno's follow on reasoning is correct and if in fact my model contains YD, CT, and AR then it contains comp but it is not the same as comp - it would embed comp. Is my model falsifiable? I will have to think about that - after all I just recently got to where it supports a flow of consciousness. Since the model does not say exactly what is on the list that is the All and the 'instantation of reality dynamic is random then what indeed is the scope of all possible states of all possible universes and the resulting actually implemented evolving universes? In any event it would be interesting to see if YD can be shown to be false. I think that might start to constrain the All and that would be interesting - [why that constraint and what others are there?]. Hal At 10:44 AM 8/19/2005, you wrote: Hi Hal, From what you say below I am not able to determine whether your model is identical or distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am interested in so let me ask you: Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you still dance if that is the case? I am asking because unfalsifiable models turn out to be a lot less interesting than falsifiable ones as I am sure you understand Best regards, Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ)
Re: subjective reality
Dear Bruno and Godfrey, It seems to me a proof that YD is false be equivalent to a proof that a Machine X fails the Turing Test! Is this nonsense about falsifying YD not a requirement that we prove a negative proposition? Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 12:13 PM Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi Bruno, OK. I think we are making progress. I will start the other thread after this message as I don't really have more obvious divergences from you and you are kind enough to indulge me in this little diversion. As before I will erase the obvious points of agreement below... Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:48:06 +0200 Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi Godfrey, Le 18-août-05, à 20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : (skipped) [BM] No YD, no Bruno!?! You make me anxious :) [GK] I am sorry! That was very callous of me! I really did not mean to imply that you would be eliminated by my argument! Much on the contrary, I am hoping you will be... illuminated (;-) !!! [BM] SWE : Schroedinger Wave Equation YD: Saying Yes to a doctor who propose you an artificial digital generalized brain. First axiom of comp. (Some people complains out-of-line for the acronyms, so I repeat them once by mail). It seems to me that you are weaseling out of it but I don't quite care if you take refuge in another Everett World. That would be a cop out and I am sure you know it. I want you and I digitised IN THIS WORLD! I don't care for copies! [BM] Well: not of copies IN THIS WORLD, I guess. Giving that that is really the by-product of saying YES to the DOCTOR (YD). [GK] I would like to leave copies out of the YD because I think those would actually invalidate the premise. If you ran into a copy of yourself in the street you may suspect that something is amiss in your world! [GK] I don't much care what you can deduce from COMP, Bruno. I care that COMP=YD+CT+AR and that shooting down YD would shoot down COMP. You could very well deduce from COMP my non-existence if YD is false. Only if YD is *proved* false!!! (I could deduce your inexistence from the SWE if any TOE (theory of everything) which supposed SWE true, if SWE is false!). You are saying something very general here! [GK] What I propose to do is to show you that your premise, YD, is false. That allows me to dismiss anything you say based on that premise. That is actually not general at all but extremely specific. From here on I will make no comment on any sentence you preface with But from COMP (or YD) I can prove that... . Nothing personal, please understand. BM: Ouh la la. You are close to the 1004 fallacy (asking for more precise definition than the reasoning itself). At the start you can use the term axioms, postulates, theses, premises, assumptions, hypotheses, etc.. in a similar way. [GK] I think you get my point. I am not asking for precision at all. I am pointing out that thesis and doctrines are not hypotheses tout court. These three assumptions do not have the same epistemic status and it is misleading to call them the same. If you don't like it, than acknowledge my pragmatics: if your point-of-view is falsifiable it should be so without compromising either CT and AR which stand very well on their own as you underscore below: [BM] Mmhhh... This is your opinion, and perhaps mine. But not of most people to which my proof is addressed (computer scientist). [GK] Oh I would not worry! Computer scientists are by, now, used to have their hopes dashed (;-). And you strike me as a real grown-up since you are not afraid of facing up to empirical testing! (skipped) [BM] Well, I have decided to put it explicitly, because, in front of my reasoning, some people cop out simply by saying Ah, but you are a platonist!. So I prefer to say it at once. I agree with you it is a sort of cop out. Now, although 99, % of the mathematician are platonist during the week, most like to pretends they are not (the week-end!). snip
Re: subjective reality
Hi, Hal, I wrote lately that 'our' (two but distinct and different) theories started from a somewuat similar way of thinking. That startup was more than a decade ago. Since then you transformed yours in its aspects and I did so as well. You went the theoretical way, I followed a practical thinking acceptable (?) to human logic as an inevitable origination of the Multiverse. I had to add this remark, because I don't want to 'ride' the theoretical merits of your theory in any sense. My narrative is by now completely different from your theory. Please forgive me my superficial words. John Mikes --- Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Godfrey: My model starts with what I describe as unavoidable definition - of the All and [simultaneously] the Nothing. Any definition defines a pair of two objects. The target object such as a flower [the is part of the pair] and an object that has the remainder of the list of all properties etc. of all possible objects [the is not part of the pair]. Generally the is not part of the pair is of little use. The All and the Nothing are an interesting is, is not definitional pair. The All is the entire list and the Nothing is the absence of the entire list. The Nothing is inherently incomplete and this results in the dynamic. This is a brief semi intro and I have posted on this model before as it has developed. Now the All part contains all possible states of all possible universes. This should include the one I believe represents ours. Therefore my All seems to contain universes that support YD and thus comp if Bruno is correct. To answer your questions as best I currently can: My model appears to contain YD, CT, and AR so if Bruno's follow on reasoning is correct and if in fact my model contains YD, CT, and AR then it contains comp but it is not the same as comp - it would embed comp. Is my model falsifiable? I will have to think about that - after all I just recently got to where it supports a flow of consciousness. Since the model does not say exactly what is on the list that is the All and the 'instantation of reality dynamic is random then what indeed is the scope of all possible states of all possible universes and the resulting actually implemented evolving universes? In any event it would be interesting to see if YD can be shown to be false. I think that might start to constrain the All and that would be interesting - [why that constraint and what others are there?]. Hal At 10:44 AM 8/19/2005, you wrote: Hi Hal, From what you say below I am not able to determine whether your model is identical or distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am interested in so let me ask you: Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you still dance if that is the case? I am asking because unfalsifiable models turn out to be a lot less interesting than falsifiable ones as I am sure you understand Best regards, Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ)
