On 7/14/2012 10:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/14/2012 8:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of
computations making you singling out some stable patterns" requires
the prior existence of the "you" to select it. The observer (you
here) effectively is the measure via a self-selection rule. I cannot
discount my own existence given the immediate fact that I am
experiencing myself as existing. Descartes' Cognito ergo Sum is a
pointed statement of this unassailable fact. We cannot put the
observer on a level that is emerging from the computations if the
observer is the one that is selecting the class of computations that
are generating said observer.
How does this comport with Everett's QM which has it that there is no
unique, persistent "you" to do the selecting. It seems a simple
matter of logic that any theory which sets out to explain
consciousness cannot assume an observer, on pain of circularity.
Brent
--
Interesting. So the unitary evolution of the SWF or state vector
is not continuous over its spectrum or what ever it is called ... the
cover or span of the basis? I completely fail to understand your claim
here. Could you elaborate on your ideas here. I am interested in your
expertise. I am just a very annoying but well meaning student.
And I need to add that not only is there a persistent "you", there
is every possible version of that persistent "you". If there is Identity
via fixed point, then there is a "you' involved in some capacity. It
just might not be belonging to an entity that some people denote as
"John Clark"; it could be "Atom of Hydrogen". This rule applies to
anything that have a SWF or state vector representation. We are not just
considering "people". You might like to learn to love panpsychism. :-P I
am just following the letter of the law of MWI.
http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Everett/paper1957.html
And furthermore, It is quite possible to represent very nicely
behaved non-well founded sets that have all kind of circularity in them.
The trick is that there is always a bound of the circularity. It is only
*actually infinite* regress that is problematic. Just because something
is possible does not mean that it must happen! We still don't understand
exactly how Nature implements the unitary evolution. We don't have a
accurate theory of quantum gravity. At the moment, physicists do not
known how to write out equations that can account for arbitrarily long
yet smooth diffeomorphism of manifolds that are fibered with nice and
well behaved quantum fields. All of the texts books cheat by using
semi-classical approximations to define the Lagrangian, figure of the
quantum field that fits that Lagrangian and tell you that they actually
didn't cheat.
If you think that quantum gravity is not involved, consider the
following: "The task of quantizing general relativity raises serious
questions about the meaning of the present formulation and
interpretation of quantum mechanics when applied to so fundamental a
structure as the space-time geometry itself. This paper seeks to clarify
the formulations of quantum mechanics. It presents a reformulation of
quantum theory in a form believed suitable for application to general
relativity." This is the first paragraph of Everett's famous paper,
referenced above.
and
{2)} "The continuous, deterministic change of state of an isolated
system with time according to a wave equation dy/dt = ?y, where A is a
linear operator."
and
"How is one to apply the conventional formulation of quantum
mechanics to the space-time geometry itself? The issue becomes
especially acute in the case of a closed universe.3 There is no place to
stand outside the system to observe it. There is nothing outside it to
produce transitions from one state to another. Even the familiar concept
of a proper state of the energy is completely inapplicable. In the
derivation of the law of conservation of energy, one defines the total
energy by way of an integral extended over a surface large enough to
include all parts of the system and their interactions.4 But in a closed
space, when a surface is made to include more and more of the volume, it
ultimately disappears into nothingness. Attempts to define a total
energy for a closed space collapse to the vacuous statement, zero equals
zero."
But let us read further:
"This paper proposes to reward pure wave mechanics (?rocess 2 only)
as a complete theory. It postulates that a wave function that obeys a
linear wave equation everywhere and at all times supplies a complete
mathematical model for every isolated physical system without exception.
It further postulates that every system that is subject to external
observation can be regarded as part of a larger isolated system. */_The
wave function is taken as the basic physical entity with no a priori
interpretation._/* Interpretation only comes after an investigation of
the logical structure of the theory."
Interesting! So what of this "external observer" (something that we
denote relating to "3p"...)? A wave function [or equivalent]? YES!
"This paper proposes to reward pure wave mechanics (process 2 only) as a
complete theory. It postulates that a wave function that obeys a linear
wave equation everywhere and at all times supplies a complete
mathematical model for every isolated physical system without exception.
It further postulates that every system that is subject to external
observation can be regarded as part of a larger isolated system.
The wave function is taken as the basic physical entity with no a priori
interpretation. Interpretation only comes after an investigation of the
logical structure of the theory."
and
"*/There does not, in general, exist anything like a single state
for one subsystem of a composite system. Subsystems do not possess
states that are independent of the states of the remainder of the
system, so that the subsystem states are generally correlated with one
another. One can arbitrarily choose a state for one subsystem, and be
led to the relative state for the remainder. Thus we are faced with a
fundamental relativity of states, which is implied by the formalism of
composite systems. It is meaningless to ask the absolute state of a
subsystem --- one can only ask the state relative to a given state of
the remainder of the subsystem/*." (Italics in original text.)
Hugh goes on to show that observers are defined by:
"We have the task of making deductions about the appearance of
phenomena to observers which are considered as purely physical systems
and are treated within the theory. To accomplish this it is necessary
to_identify some present properties of such an observer with features of
the past experience of the observer_. (my underlinning.)
Thus, in order to say that an observer 0 has observed the event a, it is
necessary that the state of 0 has become changed from its former state
to a new state which is dependent upon a.
It will suffice for our purposes to consider the observers to possess
memories (i.e., parts of a relatively permanent nature whose states are
in correspondence with past experience of the observers)._In order to
make deductions about the past experience of an observer it is
sufficient to deduce the present contents of the memory as it appears
within the mathematical model_."
What is memory except a means to allow for self-reference to occur?
Really?!
You do understand that absent circularity it is impossible for
consciousness to exist. Go through Descartes' /_Meditations_/ and slow
down on the part about "can I doubt my own existence?" He was not the
first to notice that circularity is the hall mark of consciousness.
Why is circularity a bad thing. Please Remind me, I seem to have
forgotten.
--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
