On 1/16/2013 12:42 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
I'll leave QM up to the physicists. As for myself,
I'm trying to understand the status of being of quanta.
Quanta are particles like the electron or photon.
Dear Richard,
I must disagree. :_( Quanta are actions of emission or absorption
of energy, not substances or 'things'.
Let us assume that every atom be a physical body
and its quantum [field] the corresponding mental or
nonphysical representation. Then the quanta are monads.
Yes. Monads are particles.
No, they do not have 'outsides'. We can think of them as particles
but only by identifying the center of mass of the QM system of a
'particle' - which is the measurement of a QM system with a position
basis - with an observable of a monad; but like all phenomena, they are
internal percepts of monads. Monads cannot be understood in the usual
Democritean mereology. They are not "atoms in a void".
But monads of a specific type. Ordinary corporeal bodies have
simultaneously existing [composite] monads,
When Roger speaks of monads he usually means Leibniz composite monads
Sadly... He too does not seem to understand the mereology that
Leibniz used.
but the situation regarding
atoms is contingent. Either the atom is physical
or it is monadic, but not both at the same time.
I get the picture.
Both physical Particles and Monads
Came(simultaneously) from the Big Bang,.
in a Mind/Body Duality,
Mathematically Connected according to Pratt.
This is to state the idea very badly! The "Big Bang" event horizon
is the most common point of all of the percepts of all monads, their
common historic origin that can be distinguished. If you think about
it, the BB is not a unique origin, it is a state of being, as it is
present equally everywhere in our common world of physicality. We just
do not recognize it's signature, as it is so red shifted: the Cosmic
Microwave Background. If we perform measurement of very high energies
or, equivalently, small scales, we will recover the event horizon.
I conjecture the duality to be BEC connected as well..
But why just to bosons or bosonic states?
Obviously there is some mechanism of a contingent
type that causes the quantum wave to collapse.
This could be a collision of the wave with an object,
or some random interference. But it does not require
the creation of a complete universe, which would
be unecessary as the situation is complete in itself.
I conjecture that the quantum mind is instantaneous.
If so, then all mathematical future possible quantum states
are known just like in MWI except in the quantum mind.
I agree but would say it differently.
>From our perspective all the possibilities
are like so many possible thoughts
as thoughts are seemingly instant.
Information from OBE studies appear to support this claim.
Yes!
[Roger Clough], [[email protected]]
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 09:30:24
Subject: Re: Re: the curse of materialism
This is the best ? introduction to quantum mechanics:
https://www.google.es/search?q=susskind+quantum+mechanics&aq=f&oq=susskind+quantum+mechanics&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.11316&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
disclaimer: I have not seen it. but I saw some other lectures of this series "the
theoretical minimum" ?rom Leonard Susskind and they are awersome.
The laws of physics are experimental, and experimental is a form of ad hoc. The
Schrodinger equation was made ad hoc to match the experimental results. In the same
way, ?elativity: so Michelson did not found any anisotropy in the speed of light?
let's make c constant, an see what happens in the equations".
So they lack interpretation. the interpretation is post hoc. But if we have not a innate
intuition of concepts that can help, there is no possible understanding of them. ?he
newtonian laws can be "understood" because our innate notion of phisics is
aristotelian, ?nd includes ?he fundamental elements: euclidean 3D geometry, bodies,
forces etc. But ?uantum mechanics and relativity can only be -partially- understood
intuitively by making partial analogies with innate objects of our intuition.?
I think we should approach interpretation from the notions of
completeness and incompleteness. Quantum physics is incomplete and
therefore requires interpretation.
No, it is complete as it is a theory of observers. It is our
failure to understand its logical requirements that is the
'incompleteness'. We can use GR to do that. ;-)
The interpretation being an
addition of the essential ingredient that completes the physics.
Quantum collapse is such a completion but lacks physical theory.
Collapse theories are incompatible with SR and GR, so should be
jettisoned for that reason alone.
Multiverse creation is another such completion that is Occam superior
and apparently valid on the basis of arithmetic computation theory..
My favorite set of completians are time removal and instantaneous
mind/body duality within Feynmanian mechanics.
Did you note that Pratt's idea is exactly compatible with this, as
it considers both forward and backward pointing processes?
2013/1/16 Roger Clough
Hi [email protected]
Feymann has passed on. He was the one who said that
if you think you understand QM, you don't. ?thers have said similar.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulations_of_quantum_mechanics
"The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are those mathematical
formalisms that
permit a rigorous description of quantum mechanics. Such are distinguished from
mathematical formalisms
for theories developed prior to the early 1900s by the use of abstract
mathematical structures, such as
infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and operators on these spaces. Many of
these structures are drawn from
functional analysis, a research area within pure mathematics that was
influenced in part by the needs of quantum mechanics.
In brief, values of physical observables such as energy and momentum were no
longer considered as values of
functions on phase space, but as eigenvalues; more precisely: as spectral
values (point spectrum plus absolute
continuous plus singular continuous spectrum) of linear operators in Hilbert
space.[1]"
I am not able to understand that.
The Quantum Mind is a Hilbert space
Not quite. The unitary evolution of wave functions is Mind. You are
still thinking of mind as substance, not as process... :_(
[Roger Clough], [[email protected]]
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: [email protected]
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-16, 07:38:37
Subject: Re: the curse of materialism
The Newtonian world cannot exist without Quantum world
and vice versa.
We cannot separate the Quantum theory from Classical theory,
the Quantum world from Newtonian material world.
The quantum world as real as the physical matter world and
we need understand and celebrate their unity.
Where is problem ?
The problem is, that we don? know how to unite them together.
Why ?
Because we don? know what Quantum world is and it is almost
impossible for us to believe that It can be Aristotle? metaphysical
world.
Where is the key to solving this problem ?
The key has name. Its name is ? Quantum of Light?.
==.
P.S.
?? All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
?o nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
?ut he is mistaken. ?
? ? ?/ Einstein /
===..
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
