Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>> As I said in the first post: aspect 1 is descriptions of an underlying
>> reality. aspect 2 is also a set of descriptions, but merely of
>> generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of .
>> Both aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't give either aspect
>> priority-ownership of the evidence.
>>
>
>
> And why, specifically, would something like Bohmian mechanics fail to qualify
> as "descriptions of an underlying reality"? is it because it doesn't say
> anything about first-person qualia, or is it for some other reason? What if
> we had a theory along the lines of Bohmian mechanics, and combined that with
> "psychophysical laws" of the type Chalmers postulates, laws which define a
> mapping between configurations of physical entities (described in
> mathematical, third-person terms) and specific qualia--would *that* qualify
> as what you mean by "aspect 1"?
>
Good question.
YES - Bohmian/Stappian/Bohrian/Penrosian/any old quantum mechanics
flavour all fail to predict an observer. Brilliantly predictive OF
observations (appearances) - but that's it. */Dual aspect science
predicts that failure. /*
RE: Chalmers 'postulates' ('law of organisational invariance' etc)
What you are talking about is basically the same thing as 'neural
correlates of consciousness'. Correlating reports of P-consciousness
with neural activity is descriptive: WHAT. Not explanatory: WHY? It is
based on the "Mind Brain Identity" theorem...yet another tedious
cultural agreement masquerading as science that says: "to describe the
brain is to describe the mind". The dressing up with 'psychophysical'
label changes nothing. There is no prediction here. There is merely
correlation based on the same kind of prescriptive deployment of a new
self-fulfilling 'received view'. I hope you can see this.
'Postulates' are just empty declarations. If they fail to make any
predictions they are just a lot of conventions - folk lore - just as bad
as any ascription to QM as ontological. If postulates are contrived to
fit expectations then they are tautologies (in exactly the same way that
computer 'science' computer programs are self-fulfilling tautologies).
This process merely creates a CORRELATE of the observation, not a LAW OF
NATURE.
A real theory would literally predict /a-priori /that our brains should
exist and have the structure they have, that it will be 'like something'
to be the material involved. (It will also be able to make a
scientifically justified statement about the P-cosnciousness of a rock,
a computer and an elephant.) It will predict that: There will be
neurons, assembled into layers and columns like SUCH, that their shape
shall be THIS. That membranes of THAT structure shall be found and shall
be be penetrated by ion channels THUS; That the soma shall be of this
morphogy, and the ion channels shall be of these types and have surface
densities thus...that the composition of the membrane shall be an
ordered but dynamic fluid with lipid rafts doing THIS in THESE cells to
make RED in V4 of the occipital. and so on...
Further more, a complete will result in F=MA as an emergent
a-priori property of reality, calculated as a statistic of the monism.
It would also predict, a-priori, the gravitational constant as an
statistic, along with the speed of light C and so on. In
that way the and shall mesh, perfectly, both
supported by the empirical evidence (a) by predicting an observer
(structured as per the above) and (b) that the observer shall construct
the law F=MA in the appropriate non-relativistic context of appearances.
is NOT underling reality, but a description of it. There may
be 100 complete, consistent sets, all of which work as well as each
other. We must live with that potential ambiguity. There's no
fundamental reason why we are ever entitled to a unique solution to
. But it may turn out that there can only be one. We'll never
know unless we let ourselves look, will we??
is NOT underling reality, but a description of its
appearances to an observer inside a reality described structurally as
. 100 different life-forms, as scientists/observers all over
the universe, may all concoct 100 totally different sets of 'laws of
nature', each one just as predictive of the natural world, none of
which are 'right' , but all are 'predictive' to each life-form. They all
are empirically verified by 100 very different P-consciousnesses of each
species of scientistbut they /all predict the same outcome for a
given experiment/. Human-centric 'laws of nature' are an illusion.
'Laws of Nature' are filtered through the P-cosnciousness of
the observer and verified on that basis! We need to 'get over ourselves'
yet again, in another round of 'copernican decentralisation' : only this
time in respect of our phenomenal lives and the laws we concoct..
Are we there yet?
Science is really messed up. The 'XYZ
RE: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
> As I said in the first post: aspect 1 is descriptions of an underlying > reality. aspect 2 is also a set of descriptions, but merely of > generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of . Both > aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't give either aspect > priority-ownership of the evidence. And why, specifically, would something like Bohmian mechanics fail to qualify as "descriptions of an underlying reality"? is it because it doesn't say anything about first-person qualia, or is it for some other reason? What if we had a theory along the lines of Bohmian mechanics, and combined that with "psychophysical laws" of the type Chalmers postulates, laws which define a mapping between configurations of physical entities (described in mathematical, third-person terms) and specific qualia--would *that* qualify as what you mean by "aspect 1"? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>> Jesse Maser wrote:
>>
>> The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
>> QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or
>> the Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying
>> reality that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as
>> long as these different models of different underlying realities don't lead
>> to any new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but
>> physicists often discuss them nevertheless.
>>
>> -
>> There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to know
>> where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to give you
>> the red pill.
>>
>> Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ interpretation,
>> ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what? You say these things
>> as if they actually resolve something? Did you not see that I have literally
>> had a work in review for 2 years labelled 'taboo' ? Did you not see that my
>> supervisor uttered "forbidden?" Read Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind
>> of utterance. Look at how Lisi is programmed to think by the training a
>> physicist gets...It's like there's some sort of retreat into a safety-zone
>> whereby "if I make noises like this then I'll get listened to"
>>
>> and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion. This is a
>> serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that fact that
>> science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a club and the
>> players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even plainer with set
>> theory:
>>
>> = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
>> = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE, including QM,
>> multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social science, cognitive
>> science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
>>
>
>
> You're not being very clear about why you think things like the Bohm
> interpretation of QM cannot fall into the category "descriptive laws of an
> underlying reality". By "descriptive" do you mean something intrinsically
> non-mathematical, so that any mathematical model of an underlying reality
> wouldn't qualify? If so, how could this non-mathematical description give
> rise to quantitative explanations of what we actually measure empirically? On
> the other hand, if you do allow the descriptive laws to be mathematical, what
> is it specifically about something like the Bohm interpretation or the
> many-worlds interpretation that makes them fail to qualify?
>
The 'mathematicality' (that a word?) or otherwise of descriptions is
moot. That the natural world happens to cooperate to satisfy the needs
of certain calculii, making certain mathematical abstractions useful, is
only that - happenstance...In the final analysis the 'laws' are merely
descriptions in the sense that they facilitate prediction, which is how
the natural world will appear to us when we look (with our
P-consciousness). Or, in the applied sciences, how we should make the
world appear in order that a desired behaviour occurs. That's all. Being
merely descriptions, they cannot automatically be ascribed any sort of
structural role. Such an assumption is logically flawed. Conversely our
situation does not a-priori prohibit the assembly of a set of
descriptions of actual underlying reality... provided it is consistent
with everything we know AND predictive of an observer.
As I said in the first post: is descriptions of an underlying
reality. is also a set of descriptions, but merely of
generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of
. Both aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't
give either aspect priority-ownership of the evidence.
>
>> FACT
>> = {Null}
>> FACT
>> = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor do they have
>> causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who has a clue about
>> it agrees that this is the case}
>>
>
>
> What do you mean by the term "P-consciousness"? Are you talking about the
> first-person aspects of consciousness, what philosophers call 'qualia'?
> Personally I'd agree that no purely third-person description of physical
> phenomena can explain this, but I like the approach of the philosopher David
> Chalmers, who postulates that on the one hand there are laws which fully
> determine the mathematical relationships between events in the physical world
> (so the physical world is 'causally closed', the notion of interactive
> dualism where some free-willed mind-stuff can influence physical events is
> false), and on the other hand there are 'psychophysical laws' which determine
> which patterns of events in the physical world give rise to which types of
> first-person qualia. Of course, since I prefer monism to dualism I
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> >From the "everything list" FYI
>>
>> Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>> Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
>>> decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
>>> represents the current state of QM.
>>>
>>> Brent Meeker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Jesse Maser wrote:
>>
>> The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
>> QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or
>> the Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying
>> reality that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as
>> long as these different models of different underlying realities don't lead
>> to any new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but
>> physicists often discuss them nevertheless.
>>
>>
>> -
>> There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to
>> know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to
>> give you the red pill.
>>
>> Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ
>> interpretation, ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what?
>> You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not
>> see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled
>> 'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered "forbidden?" Read
>> Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is
>> programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's
>> some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby "if I make noises like
>> this then I'll get listened to"
>>
>> /and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./
>> This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that
>> fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a
>> club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even
>> plainer with set theory:
>>
>> = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
>>
>
> How do you know the Standard model, for example, is not descriptive of
> underlying reality. If it's not, there sure are some amazing incidents of
> prediction.
>
What? The standard model IS merely descriptive! /*of*/ an
underlying reality ...It is incredibly predictiveBUT It describes
*/_how it will appear_/* to an assumed observer. It does not describe
the STRUCTURE of an underlying reality. In no way can anyone assume that
UNDERLYING STRUCTURE _is to_ DESCRIPTIONS OF
APPEARANCES
is ONE _is to_ ONE
This would arbitrarily populate an IDENTITY, {} = {}
and again fail to predict an observer. Scientists have been doing this
for 50 years. It's call the 'mind brain identity theory'. To describe
the brain is to explain the mindagain nothing predictive of mind
ever occurs.
>
>> = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
>> including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
>> science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
>>
>
> What's the difference between an "empirical law" and a "descriptive law"?
> Are
> empirical laws not descriptive?
>
>
>> FACT
>> = {Null}
>>
>
> See above.
>
DITTO.
>
>> FACT
>> = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor
>> do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who
>> has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}
>>
>
> People said the same thing about life and postulated an elan vital. Maybe
> it's
> just that you don't have a clue as to what an explanation would look like.
>
Please try to internalise what I actually mean by dual aspect... I have
a very very complex already constructed. I have already
isolated the 1 fundamental principle which appears to be consistent with
the whole thing.
I could write it out in detail. _BUT Without a dual aspect science the
whole process is a waste of time._
An example of science: Steven Wolfram has tried to populate
and doesn't realise it. He has been unjustifiably put down by
the system of blinkered science I have encountered. Forget how
right/wrong you may conceive Steven Wolfram to be merely try to
imagine how different his depiction of an underlying reality is. It is
as a cellular automaton (CA). 'Dual Aspect science' makes
sense of the basic Wolfram framework Wolfram failed to address the
question "what is it like to BE an entity in a CA?"..this does not
matter..In general terms: A correctly formulated CA would
reveal {} laws to an appropriate observer-entity /within the
CA/, doing science on the CA from that perspective. laws
would equally fail to predict an observer, but would brilliantly predict
specific observations. The rules of the CA are NOT the rules in {} They are a completely different set, . Only the CA is
responsib
RE: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
>
> Jesse Maser wrote:
>
> The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
> QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the
> Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality
> that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as
> these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any
> new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists
> often discuss them nevertheless.
>
> -
> There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to know
> where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to give you the
> red pill.
>
> Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ interpretation,
> ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what? You say these things
> as if they actually resolve something? Did you not see that I have literally
> had a work in review for 2 years labelled 'taboo' ? Did you not see that my
> supervisor uttered "forbidden?" Read Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind
> of utterance. Look at how Lisi is programmed to think by the training a
> physicist gets...It's like there's some sort of retreat into a safety-zone
> whereby "if I make noises like this then I'll get listened to"
>
> and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion. This is a
> serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that fact that
> science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a club and the
> players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even plainer with set
> theory:
>
> = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
> = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE, including QM,
> multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social science, cognitive
> science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
You're not being very clear about why you think things like the Bohm
interpretation of QM cannot fall into the category "descriptive laws of an
underlying reality". By "descriptive" do you mean something intrinsically
non-mathematical, so that any mathematical model of an underlying reality
wouldn't qualify? If so, how could this non-mathematical description give rise
to quantitative explanations of what we actually measure empirically? On the
other hand, if you do allow the descriptive laws to be mathematical, what is it
specifically about something like the Bohm interpretation or the many-worlds
interpretation that makes them fail to qualify?
>
> FACT
> = {Null}
> FACT
> = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor do they have
> causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who has a clue about
> it agrees that this is the case}
What do you mean by the term "P-consciousness"? Are you talking about the
first-person aspects of consciousness, what philosophers call 'qualia'?
Personally I'd agree that no purely third-person description of physical
phenomena can explain this, but I like the approach of the philosopher David
Chalmers, who postulates that on the one hand there are laws which fully
determine the mathematical relationships between events in the physical world
(so the physical world is 'causally closed', the notion of interactive dualism
where some free-willed mind-stuff can influence physical events is false), and
on the other hand there are 'psychophysical laws' which determine which
patterns of events in the physical world give rise to which types of
first-person qualia. Of course, since I prefer monism to dualism I have some
vague ideas that the laws of mind might actually be fundamental, with the
apparent physical laws being derived from them--see
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg13848.html for my
speculations on this.
>
> In other words, scientists have added special laws to that masquerade as
> constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs. Beliefs about Belief.
> They ascribe actual physical reification of quantum mechanical descriptions.
> EG: Stapp's "cloud-like" depiction. I put it to you that reality could have
> every single particle in an exquisitely defined position simultaneously with
> just as exquisitely well defined momentum.
That's exactly what's true in the Bohm interpretation, particles have
well-defined positions and velocities at all times. If you're not familiar with
this interpretation see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Colin Hales wrote:
> >From the "everything list" FYI
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
>> decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
>> represents the current state of QM.
>>
>> Brent Meeker
>>
>>
>>
> Jesse Maser wrote:
>
> The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
> QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the
> Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality
> that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as
> these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any
> new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists
> often discuss them nevertheless.
>
>
> -
> There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to
> know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to
> give you the red pill.
>
> Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ
> interpretation, ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what?
> You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not
> see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled
> 'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered "forbidden?" Read
> Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is
> programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's
> some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby "if I make noises like
> this then I'll get listened to"
>
> /and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./
> This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that
> fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a
> club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even
> plainer with set theory:
>
> = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
How do you know the Standard model, for example, is not descriptive of
underlying reality. If it's not, there sure are some amazing incidents of
prediction.
> = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
> including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
> science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
What's the difference between an "empirical law" and a "descriptive law"? Are
empirical laws not descriptive?
>
> FACT
> = {Null}
See above.
> FACT
> = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor
> do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who
> has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}
People said the same thing about life and postulated an elan vital. Maybe it's
just that you don't have a clue as to what an explanation would look like.
Brent
"They laughed at Bozo the Clown too."
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
From the "everything list" FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
> decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
> represents the current state of QM.
>
> Brent Meeker
>
>
>
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about QM,
though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the Bohm
interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality that
gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as these
different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any new
predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists often
discuss them nevertheless.
-
There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to
know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to
give you the red pill.
Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ
interpretation, ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what?
You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not
see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled
'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered "forbidden?" Read
Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is
programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's
some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby "if I make noises like
this then I'll get listened to"
/and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./
This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that
fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a
club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even
plainer with set theory:
= {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
= { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
FACT
= {Null}
FACT
= {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor
do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who
has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}
In other words, scientists have added special laws to that
masquerade as constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs.
Beliefs about Belief. They ascribe actual physical reification of
quantum mechanical descriptions. EG: Stapp's "cloud-like" depiction. I
put it to you that reality could have every single particle
in an exquisitely defined position simultaneously with just as
exquisitely well defined momentum. There are no 'clouds'. No actual or
physical 'fuzziness'. I quite well defined particle operating in a
dimensionality slightly higher than our own could easily appear
fuzzy.There is merely /*lack of knowledge*/ and the reality of us as
observers altering those very things when we observestandard
measurement phenomenon... This reality I describe is COMPLETELY
consistent with so called QM 'laws'. To believe that electrons are
'fuzzy', rather than our knowledge of them, in an reality
that merely behaves 'as-if' that is the case, is a meta-belief. To
believe that there are multiple universes just because a bunch of maths
seems to be consistent with that...utter delusion...
Physics has also added a special law to , a 'law of nature'
which reads as follows: "Physicists do not and shall not populate set
because, well just because".
Yet, ASPECT 1 is ACTUAL REALITY. It, and nothing else, is responsible
for everything, INCLUDING P-consciousness and physicists with a capacity
to populate . Abstractions of reality derived through
P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal
necessity, and if incorporated in as an explanation of
P-consciousness, become meta-belief"I belief that this other law has explained P-consciousness" when it clearly does not
because NONE of PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS.
As to 'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an reality -
responsible for the faculty that provides all observation, any less
witnessed than anything is ? You are implicltly denying
P-cosnciousness ITSELF and positing it as having been already explained
in some way by CONTENTS of P-consciousness (that is literally, in
context, scientific observation). Do you see that?
In this way, solving for consciousness is systemically proscribed, along
with the permanent failure to solve P-consciousness. Every example where
I have discovered anyone attempting to populate or even
positing a mechanism by which that might happenis systematically
ignored and marginalised.
Actual underlying reality creates P-consciousness. Nothing else. Until
we allow ourselves to populate we will NEVER explain
anything, let alon
