Marcus-
I was thinking of the ER=EPR example.
My intuition is that after we elaborate enough examples like this, as
well as Feynman's observation that since all (heretofore observed)
electrons appear identical, perhaps they are a *single* electron which
is everywhere/everywhen, we might come up with a "dual theory" in the
same sense that when you replace the edges of a graph with vertices and
vice-versa, you get a *dual* which is sometimes more tractable to
operate on (or think about) than the other.
Seems like basic questions of interpretation just get kicked down the
road indefinitely because there is math that is serviceable. One
could say its serviceability is what leads to improved interpretations
(in the fullness of time), or maybe it just delays asking the hard
questions?
“There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men
understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever
was such a time. On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that no
one understand quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if
you can possibly avoid it, `But how can it be like that?’ because you
will get `down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet
escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.” [Richard Feynman,
The Character of Physical Law]
Good stuff... in Monday's Salon, we invoked the von Neumann quote: "In
mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them." and
also discussed Lakoff/Nunez' "Where Mathematics Comes From" but did not
resolve the implied contradiction (my observation in this moment, not
discussed there/then).
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
