On 19 December 2013 13:35, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 19 December 2013 12:16, Stephen Paul King >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to >>> "...perform 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... >>> >>> That isn't quite correct. The "view from nowhere" *is *the equations. >> > > LOL, nice semantic trick. A mathematical system is a "view". Seriously! > That argument is rubbish. Nagel was great on some of his stuff, but that > argument have serious problems. > It isn't a semantic trick. That's what a scientific theory is - a general description of the system in question (e.g. the universe or a hydrogen atom). If you expect more than that you are deluding yourself, because that's exactly what you get. The equations are general, hence they aren't taking any specific view / frame of reference / basis. > >> >>>> 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... >>> >>> "Bias" as normally used has various psychological implications that >> don't apply to calculations in physics. It might be better to use a word >> without such connotations (frame of reference or basis, for example). >> > > Semantics... Could you offer a better word? > Frame of reference or basis. > > >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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? >>> >> >> From when a specific observer makes a specific measurement. The theory >> covers all possible "selection biases". Theories try very hard to be >> general in that sense. >> > > OK, so there it is: "...when a specific observer makes a specific > measurement". There does not exist an entity that can have states of > knowledge of something that cannot exist. There is no god and no view that > it, if it could exist, could have. Any reasoning that assumes otherwise is > wrong from the bang. > I can't parse the above. But to reiterate, a theory is a set of equations which tries to apply to the general case. When someone uses it in a specific situation, then they select a frame of reference. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>> interesting. >>> >> >> The abstract is enough to tell me that it doesn't make any changes to the >> idea of events being embedded in space time. Indeed he's trying to recover >> that concept from his chains of events. It sounds similar to CDT in that >> way. >> > > Watch it. Kevin reasons very slowly and carefully to a very astonishing > result. > Unfortunately I don't have time for slow careful reasoning, can we skip ahead to the astonishing result? -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
