Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

[LizR]

On 14 September 2014 10:32, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably
> collapse - etc.
>
>  The Hilbert space for an atom, even a hydrogen atom, is infinite
> dimensional.
>

Of course, but Newtonian physics makes *everything* infinitely
fine-grained, while quantum physics places limits on what can do what. For
example it seems unlikely to me that you can have life without some digital
information storage mechanism that is based on some version of quantum
physics (like DNA)but who knows for sure?

>
>  But just a guess hence the provisos. Personally I would imagine most
> mathematical universes wouldn't support life though.
>
>  Sure, but you'd guess that about physical universes too just from
> observing how rare life seems to be in our universe.
>

I might, but if I was looking for life-bearing universes in (say) the
string landscape, I wouldn't actually try to do it by physical examination,
even if granted the godlike powers required to do so. I would more likely
start with whether the laws of physics in each universe allow the formation
of a range of elements, whether they make the formation of large scale
structures likely, what complexity of chemical compounds they make
available, etc. I wouldn't look for life in the level 2 multiverse with a
telescope!


>   It's hard to say anything useful though because there's no canonical
> measure to apply.  I've had this discussion with proponents of fine-tuning
> arguments too.  They pick on some variable and say it's "fine tuned", but
> with respect to what measure.  The notional variable range is infinite, so
> whether it's "fine tuned" or "coarse tuned" depends on how you slip in some
> intuitive measure.
>

Yes, I agree, this is the problem with this sort of discussion. The
question is whether we can actually reach any meaningful conclusions based
on the information we have available, or whether we might as well be
writing technobabble for "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who". I don't know the
answer.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Kim Jones  wrote:

>
>
> It's not really that profound methinks, though I enjoy greatly your
> detailing of the fascinating love/hate between Gus and Arnie. Actually they
> were a couple of Jewish intellectuals competing with each other in the way
> that Jewish intellectuals always have and always will. Competitiveness
> amongst Jewish intellectuals is a lot of what drives science and art. Bohr
> was not Jewish so Niels and Albert simply weren't on the same wavelength.
>

Apologies. Up until this moment, I had only been aware of the non Jewish
kind of competitiveness and saw parallels also between Bohr and Everett, to
take another example of these difficult kinds of relations.

My point being that what seem like huge gulfs technically, can turn out to
be Einstein spooking Bohr, or Mahler respecting Schönberg, or Bohr having
none of Everett. In all cases you can have fruitful continuations in longer
run, therefore the subject is trickier and as profound as it gets imho; not
least because it's also bears on theological question.

Maybe one for machines. But I'm too lazy to defend the idea or get
competitive about it... PGC

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

[Terren Suydam]

Thanks Brent. If you could prove it would be impossible to formulate a
quantum theory without continuous values and probabilities, that would be
ironic.

Terren
On Sep 13, 2014 12:05 PM, "meekerdb"  wrote:

>  On 9/13/2014 6:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2014 1:49 AM, "meekerdb"  wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although
> I'm not sure why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that.  Quantum
> physics, as we've formulated it depends on a continuum.
>
> Brent,
>
> Can you elaborate on why qm depends on a continuum?
>
>
> It assumes linearity, continuous complex valued linear combinations of
> states and corresponding continuous values of probabilities.  Notice I said
> "as we've formulated it".  I don't have a proof that it would be impossible
> to formulate a different, but quantum like, theory avoiding a continuum.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
>

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Causing the 2nd revolution of scientific structure

[Kim Jones]

> On 14 Sep 2014, at 8:33 am, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
> 
> I am going to have a go at establishing a forum for the first act of science 
> self-governance in the modern era.


Nothing governs itself. Everything is in the clutches of some agenda or other 
for better or worse - whether conscious or unconscious. Why should your agenda 
be privileged? The idea that discussion needs governance is good but that is 
something that happens naturally when people are trained to think, not because 
someone imposes a bunch of almost certainly prohibitionist edicts which are 
nothing more than starting premises which are always arbitrary. In what sense 
can any forum - which is precisely what the Everything List is, and, what you 
are proposing (yet another forum) - be said to possess the ability to moderate 
itself? Some asshole has the right to kick you off the list, right? Will that 
be your happy role?


> An ASSC consciousness conference, where physics and neuroscientists are well 
> enough informed, would do nicely.


Well-enough informed with the kind of ideas and knowledge acknowledged by the 
entity that stands behind the whole shebang you mean. A kind of Gestapo of 
Science, you mean. 


> 
> Meanwhile, if the folk on this list could raise their awareness of self 
> governance and what it might mean for science,


Just ask a human in any field to govern themselves. It's logically impossible 
to govern yourself, just look at the world. What you want is for people to 
"behave themselves" and get over certain things which are simply not to your 
taste. You made that clear aeons ago. 


> then something might actually come of all the endless debates.


What's wrong with endless debate? Who has ever successfully put a halt to the 
endless debate of scientific inquiry? Debate over anything is basically useless 
as a mode of thinking in the everyday world anyway, but it does at least have a 
hallowed place in science and philosophy. Science and philosophy are basically 
endless so the central thinking process which is debate similarly remains 
endless. And a lot has come from these endless debates, given this is the only 
place where some of this stuff ever gets tackled. And if you think that's bs 
and what happens here is so trivial why do you care so much as to come back and 
haunt the place? 


> Nothing is ever going to happen if we don't do this.


Don't do what? Adopt your notion of self-governance? You'd better say exactly 
what that means because it sounds very very dodgy to me.

Kim


> Cheers
> 
> Colin Hales

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

[Kim Jones]

> On 13 Sep 2014, at 4:57 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Zero, even though they were all superstars and doing quite well for 
>> themselves. Sure, there are examples of great selflessness in the name of 
>> stepping forward together too, but this is rather exceptional. PGC
> 
> One example that proves me wrong nicely and shows we can do without 
> conveniently ignoring each other, even if we share similar lines of work:
> 
> Little excursion: 
> 
> The relation between Gustav Mahler and Arnold Schönberg. In short brute form: 
> Mahler championed the classical world, while Schönberg started to experiment 
> with 12 tone music of 20th century. On many levels, one could think this is a 
> parallel to the encounter of Einstein and Bohr, classicism versus quantum 
> simultaneity, ancient Hellenic forms versus brave new world of 
> incomprehensible peculiarities, God vs. a game of chance playing for truth.
> 
> After a disastrous first dinner (the kind where Schönberg terminated  the 
> evening meal he was invited to at the Mahler House by storming out into the 
> Vienna streets, after talking shop had become a bit too serious after some 
> glasses of wine), Mahler would not only reverse his view on Schönberg's 
> character, but in exemplary form simply acknowledge: 
> 
> "I don't really understand what he does, but my ears are growing old". He put 
> everything where his mouth and songs were: Mahler would give Schönberg 
> references as Musikdireketor in Vienna, help Schönberg's music get 
> played/published, even insist with public verbal reprimand that the snobby 
> Vienna elite stop screeching their chairs on the floor during a Schönberg 
> performance, get physically involved in throwing out a rabble-rouser at 
> another performance, and even financially support the young Schönberg. 
> 
> Mahler didn't "get" Schönberg's music, but he gave the provocateur that 
> questioned the entire musical legacy he stood for and represented, benefit of 
> the doubt.
> 
> Imagine Einstein doing this for Bohr.
> 
> In music however, Schönberg spearheading the new paradigm and school of 
> thought would not stop him from becoming one of Mahler's most adoring fans 
> which is evident from letters or his reaction to Mahler's 8th Symphony.
> 
> There are countless other examples in which people rectify mistakes and get 
> over violent/competitive histories. In the end Mahler's heart shines through 
> the histories, the technical quagmires, and differing musical theologies and 
> theories between the two. No need for this competitive posing around. It can 
> be done. And where there are strong women and men, it is. PGC 
>  

It's not really that profound methinks, though I enjoy greatly your detailing 
of the fascinating love/hate between Gus and Arnie. Actually they were a couple 
of Jewish intellectuals competing with each other in the way that Jewish 
intellectuals always have and always will. Competitiveness amongst Jewish 
intellectuals is a lot of what drives science and art. Bohr was not Jewish so 
Niels and Albert simply weren't on the same wavelength.

Kim

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Causing the 2nd revolution of scientific structure

[Richard Ruquist]

Colin,

I very strongly disagree with your intentions even though I believe in a
dual-aspect reality.
Science does very well right now based on experimental confirmation of
hypothesis.
Your first step should be to establish how a dual-aspect science can be
experimentally verified.
Frankly you have no right to govern science, nor does anyone else.
Richard

On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:19 PM, ColinHales  wrote:

> Hi Liz, Mike, et.al.
>
> It's time for the nature/descriptions of it/math relationship to undergo
> some formal attention by science.
>
> Discussions of the options we have in how we humans behave when describing
> the universe, in any other human social context, would be the job of a 
> *governing
> body* and is called self governance. Variable levels of social formality
> attract varying levels of formality in the self governance. We have self
> governance for tennis, rugby, legal system, trade etc. etc. etc.
>
> We have _zero_ self governance for science. Scientists are unaware there
> is even an option.
>
> Scientific behaviour is universally assumed complete, finished, fixed. It
> is learned by imitation of mentors, not by being handed the rules on a
> single sheet of paper on day 1. Self-governance at least writes down the
> 'rules' e.g. tennis. In the book I write down the rules of scientific
> behaviour (as practiced for 350 years) for the first time. It is not
> written down anywhere else. If there is a fundamental limit in the
> behaviour, and you never ever review the behaviour  isn't it obvious
> what goes wrong?
>
> Please do not confuse the behaviour that produces science outcomes with
> the outcomes of the behaviour. This is about the former, not the latter.
>
> This list's decade++ of unresolved endless debate devoid of any sort of
> progress is a symptom of the lack of self governance in science. Nothing
> will ever get resolved until we document what we actually do as scientists,
> look formally at its weakness/limits and then propose changes, to what
> scientific behaviour is, to deal with it. We must change scientific
> behaviour itself.
>
> We can't 'discover' our way to progress in this. We have to 'govern' our
> way to progress.
>
>  Self-governance is not self-regulation. Science brilliantly ensures the
> ‘assumed, undocumented  rules’ are followed. Science never ever reviews the
> rules. It’s assumed complete. My book reveals this strange, unique position
> in science for what it is.
>
> Science’s governance is not and never was the job of philosophy.
>
> Until we have at least one serious attempt at self governance, and a
> willingness to change science itself, we will be stuck with a 350 year old
> fossil social behaviour operating in an anomalous undocumented way, full of
> presupposition and endless debates and no resolution on the relationship
> between computing and scientific description, the scientific account of the
> observer, the scientific account of what is observed, and the natural world
> itself.
>
> In the conduct of science, none of us have a right to an opinion: "Assume
> X", "Take exception to Y", "I Believe Z", "any sort of philosophical
> XYZ-ism", "Tegmark is right" etc etc etc.
>
> We only have the right to what we can argue for with evidence.
>
> That's what I do in the book. About science behaviour itself, not its
> outputs.
>
> Dual aspect science is an empirical proposition. It has a relationship
> between the underlying world and computation. It has a relationship between
> the natural world and the observer. It has a self-established and doubtable
> account of the limits of knowledge of the natural world acquired from
> within. It does not assume uniqueness or arbitrary fixedness in any
> description of nature. It lets a computer’s account of nature and the human
> cognitive account of nature differ in structured, known ways. All of it is
> directly testable. The framework upgrade is a testable hypothesis.
>
> Someone on this list might have another proposal. Great! Let's organise a
> governing body to examine all options and actually _do something_ about it.
>
> I am going to have a go at establishing a forum for the first act of science
> self-governance in the modern era. An ASSC consciousness conference, where
> physics and neuroscientists are well enough informed, would do nicely.
>
> Meanwhile, if the folk on this list could raise their awareness of self
> governance and what it might mean for science, then something might
> actually come of all the endless debates. Nothing is ever going to happen
> if we don't do this.
>
> Cheers
>
> Colin Hales
>
>
>
>  --
> 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 mo

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

[meekerdb]

On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, LizR wrote:

Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably collapse - 
etc.


The Hilbert space for an atom, even a hydrogen atom, is infinite dimensional.

But just a guess hence the provisos. Personally I would imagine most mathematical 
universes wouldn't support life though.


Sure, but you'd guess that about physical universes too just from observing how rare life 
seems to be in our universe.  It's hard to say anything useful though because there's no 
canonical measure to apply.  I've had this discussion with proponents of fine-tuning 
arguments too.  They pick on some variable and say it's "fine tuned", but with respect to 
what measure.  The notional variable range is infinite, so whether it's "fine tuned" or 
"coarse tuned" depends on how you slip in some intuitive measure.


Brent



On 13 September 2014 17:49, meekerdb > wrote:


On 9/12/2014 10:25 PM, LizR wrote:

On 13 September 2014 08:17, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote:

On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:


One counter argument is to note that math has been "unreasonably
effective" in Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid 
dynamics,
non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and other theories which we now 
think
were mere approximations.  This seems much more consistent with
mathematics being descriptive rather than prescriptive.


Or equally consistent, at least. Assuming that maths is broader than 
what is
required to describe (or generate) our universe, this is equally 
consistent
with the MUH.

I don't think it's equal.  If MUH is true then all those other 
mathematical
theories must be realized in some other universes where they are not 
just
approximations.  Then it's no longer the case that mathematics is 
unreasonably
effective in picking out our universe; it could "pick out" any one of them. 
Either it would just be chance that we're in THIS mathematical universe, or

there's an anthropic selection that prevents intelligent beings in 
universes
with different mathematical bases.

It seems obvious to me that there would be an anthropic selection effect. 
Organisms
(probably) couldn't exist in a universe made from, for example, Newtonian 
physics -
you (probably) need quantum physics for fidelity of reproduction, and maybe 
for
making brains.


Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although 
I'm not
sure why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that.  Quantum physics, as 
we've
formulated it depends on a continuum.  I would expect that most continuum 
based
theories could support intelligent life simply because they permit lots of
information.  But it's very speculative.

Brent




--
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/d/optout.

Causing the 2nd revolution of scientific structure

[ColinHales]

 

Hi Liz, Mike, et.al.

It's time for the nature/descriptions of it/math relationship to undergo 
some formal attention by science. 

Discussions of the options we have in how we humans behave when describing 
the universe, in any other human social context, would be the job of a 
*governing 
body* and is called self governance. Variable levels of social formality 
attract varying levels of formality in the self governance. We have self 
governance for tennis, rugby, legal system, trade etc. etc. etc. 

We have _zero_ self governance for science. Scientists are unaware there is 
even an option.

Scientific behaviour is universally assumed complete, finished, fixed. It 
is learned by imitation of mentors, not by being handed the rules on a 
single sheet of paper on day 1. Self-governance at least writes down the 
'rules' e.g. tennis. In the book I write down the rules of scientific 
behaviour (as practiced for 350 years) for the first time. It is not 
written down anywhere else. If there is a fundamental limit in the 
behaviour, and you never ever review the behaviour  isn't it obvious 
what goes wrong?

Please do not confuse the behaviour that produces science outcomes with the 
outcomes of the behaviour. This is about the former, not the latter.

This list's decade++ of unresolved endless debate devoid of any sort of 
progress is a symptom of the lack of self governance in science. Nothing 
will ever get resolved until we document what we actually do as scientists, 
look formally at its weakness/limits and then propose changes, to what 
scientific behaviour is, to deal with it. We must change scientific 
behaviour itself. 

We can't 'discover' our way to progress in this. We have to 'govern' our 
way to progress.

 Self-governance is not self-regulation. Science brilliantly ensures the 
‘assumed, undocumented  rules’ are followed. Science never ever reviews the 
rules. It’s assumed complete. My book reveals this strange, unique position 
in science for what it is.

Science’s governance is not and never was the job of philosophy.

Until we have at least one serious attempt at self governance, and a 
willingness to change science itself, we will be stuck with a 350 year old 
fossil social behaviour operating in an anomalous undocumented way, full of 
presupposition and endless debates and no resolution on the relationship 
between computing and scientific description, the scientific account of the 
observer, the scientific account of what is observed, and the natural world 
itself.

In the conduct of science, none of us have a right to an opinion: "Assume 
X", "Take exception to Y", "I Believe Z", "any sort of philosophical 
XYZ-ism", "Tegmark is right" etc etc etc.

We only have the right to what we can argue for with evidence.

That's what I do in the book. About science behaviour itself, not its 
outputs.

Dual aspect science is an empirical proposition. It has a relationship 
between the underlying world and computation. It has a relationship between 
the natural world and the observer. It has a self-established and doubtable 
account of the limits of knowledge of the natural world acquired from 
within. It does not assume uniqueness or arbitrary fixedness in any 
description of nature. It lets a computer’s account of nature and the human 
cognitive account of nature differ in structured, known ways. All of it is 
directly testable. The framework upgrade is a testable hypothesis.

Someone on this list might have another proposal. Great! Let's organise a 
governing body to examine all options and actually _do something_ about it.

I am going to have a go at establishing a forum for the first act of science 
self-governance in the modern era. An ASSC consciousness conference, where 
physics and neuroscientists are well enough informed, would do nicely.

Meanwhile, if the folk on this list could raise their awareness of self 
governance and what it might mean for science, then something might 
actually come of all the endless debates. Nothing is ever going to happen 
if we don't do this.

Cheers

Colin Hales



-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

[LizR]

Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably
collapse - etc. But just a guess hence the provisos. Personally I would
imagine most mathematical universes wouldn't support life though.

On 13 September 2014 17:49, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 9/12/2014 10:25 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 13 September 2014 08:17, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  One counter argument is to note that math has been "unreasonably
>>> effective" in Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid dynamics,
>>> non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and other theories which we now think
>>> were mere approximations.  This seems much more consistent with mathematics
>>> being descriptive rather than prescriptive.
>>>
>>
>>  Or equally consistent, at least. Assuming that maths is broader than
>> what is required to describe (or generate) our universe, this is equally
>> consistent with the MUH.
>>
>> I don't think it's equal.  If MUH is true then all those other
>> mathematical theories must be realized in some other universes where they
>> are not just approximations.  Then it's no longer the case that mathematics
>> is unreasonably effective in picking out our universe; it could "pick out"
>> any one of them.  Either it would just be chance that we're in THIS
>> mathematical universe, or there's an anthropic selection that prevents
>> intelligent beings in universes with different mathematical bases.
>>
>>   It seems obvious to me that there would be an anthropic selection
> effect. Organisms (probably) couldn't exist in a universe made from, for
> example, Newtonian physics - you (probably) need quantum physics for
> fidelity of reproduction, and maybe for making brains.
>
>
> Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although
> I'm not sure why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that.  Quantum
> physics, as we've formulated it depends on a continuum.  I would expect
> that most continuum based theories could support intelligent life simply
> because they permit lots of information.  But it's very speculative.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
>

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

[meekerdb]

On 9/13/2014 6:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:



On Sep 13, 2014 1:49 AM, "meekerdb" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


>
> Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although I'm not sure 
why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that.  Quantum physics, as we've formulated it 
depends on a continuum.


Brent,

Can you elaborate on why qm depends on a continuum?



It assumes linearity, continuous complex valued linear combinations of states and 
corresponding continuous values of probabilities. Notice I said "as we've formulated it".  
I don't have a proof that it would be impossible to formulate a different, but quantum 
like, theory avoiding a continuum.


Brent

--
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/d/optout.

Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

[Terren Suydam]

On Sep 13, 2014 1:49 AM, "meekerdb"  wrote:

>
> Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although
I'm not sure why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that.  Quantum
physics, as we've formulated it depends on a continuum.

Brent,

Can you elaborate on why qm depends on a continuum?

Thanks,
Terren

-- 
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/d/optout.