On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King
>> Hi LizR,
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>> No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to "interpret"
>>>> the mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are
>>>> immune from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to
>>>> build bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean
>>>> vision of the universe.
>>> I'm not sure what you are saying - if they are immune from your
>>> critique, then I assume your critique is in trouble.
>> SR, GR and QM do not require, and some say even prohibit, a "view from
>> nowhere <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere>". Thus my claim
>> follows. SR, GR and QM all require some selection of a frame or basis pr
>> "point of view" that induces a bias. Laplace and the Newtonians and, I
>> argue, the Platonist assume that the ontological ground can be defined to
>> have some particular set of properties (and not any other) without any
>> explanation of how it is necessarily so; like Bruno with his AR.
> I'm not sure that SR, GR and QM require "selection of a frame" except
> insofar as one wishes to perform a particular calculation. SR for example
> describes what particular observers will measure, but doesn't require that
> their frame of reference is in any way special. Similarly, QM (with
> Everett) doesn't require that any basis is special, as far as I know, just
> that certain observers will select one by making a particular measurement.
What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to
a particular calculation"? This is the problem, we figure out ways to make
ourselves believe that we can "know" all that there is to know about the
world given some theory (mathematical or other). Can we gaze upon the space
of solutions of SR, etc? No! But we can get some pretty good ideas
exploring exactly how the "particular calculations" work. One has to plug
in a set of numbers that include the specification of the inertial frame of
reference (which involves the masses and velocities of the objects that are
considered in the calculation). One then "turns the crank" and out pops a
solution that is true* for that particular inertial frame*.
My point is not about any kind of "specialness", *the same condition
follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such
thing, mathematically, as a "view from nowhere" or, equivalently, for a
"god's eye point of view." God is dead and so is his "view".
For QM, things are even more restrictive: one has to assume that the
Hilbert space of the wave function is *finite* and a choice of the basis of
that space <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_(linear_algebra)> must be
done. That's the math...
> I think the use of the word "bias" in the context of reference frames and
> suchlike is misleading.
Not at all. It is a bias. Anything a choice is made from a non-singular
collection of possibilities, the result is some subset of that collection.
If no member is "left out" then we could say that the choice is unbiased,
but what kind of choice is the one that pulls a "I'lll take them all!" when
"all of them" can not be simultaneously chosen? Nature works that way,
there is no such thing as an unbiased choice, therefore...
>>>> That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher
>>>> dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we,
>>>> as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never
>>>> the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the
>>>> universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the
>>>> universe: this is cheating don't you think?
>>>> No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe
>>> is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at
>>> worst a non sequitur.
>> Ah, but neglecting the "interpretation" and its selection bias - as if it
>> did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out.
> As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist in the theory, only when a specific
> observer is making a specific measurement.
OK, it doesn't exist in the theory, so where is it coming from?
>>> We don't "extract sapience" (whatever that means) by inventing
>>> mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage
>>> about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the
>>> world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for
>>> our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if
>>> anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them
>>> to explain why.
>> Part of my research is looking at space-time as an emergent ordering of
>> events. People like Renata
>> Loll<http://www.hef.ru.nl/~rloll/Web/research/research.html>and Kevin
>> Knuth <http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0881> have some pretty good arguments
>> against the idea that space-time is something that "we are embedded in".
>> This "fishbowl" or "container" conceptualization of space-time is just
>> another version of the Laplacean vision...
> I don't know about Kevin Knuth, what is he suggesting? Renate Loll is I
> believe an exponent of CDT, which as far as I know doesn't make any changes
> to the notion that events and so on are embedded in space time.
Read Kevin's paper that I linked to his name. Its neat! There is a video
of a talk that he gave on the subject. The Q&A session at the end is very
>> My wording involving sapience was bad/unhelpful....
> I know I have oversimplified and even misused words on occasion, but I'm
> merely a humble housewife / editrix. I'd hope a philosopher would be extra
> careful about word choice!
LOL, I often get an asynchrony between what my brain is thinking and what
my hands are typing...
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.