On 19 Dec 2013, at 01:35, Stephen Paul King 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 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.
For example, we find here
http://www.amazon.com/View-Nowhere-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195056442
"Human beings have the unique ability to view the world in a
detached way: We can think about the world in terms that transcend
our own experience or interest, and consider the world from a
vantage point that is, in Nagel's words, "nowhere in particular." At
the same time, each of us is a particular person in a particular
place, each with his own "personal" view of the world, a view that
we can recognize as just one aspect of the whole. How do we
reconcile these two standpoints--intellectually, morally, and
practically? To what extent are they irreconcilable and to what
extent can they be integrated? Thomas Nagel's ambitious and lively
book tackles this fundamental issue, arguing that our divided nature
is the root of a whole range of philosophical problems, touching, as
it does, every aspect of human life. He deals with its
manifestations in such fields of philosophy as: the mind-body
problem, personal identity, knowledge and skepticism, thought and
reality, free will, ethics, the relation between moral and other
values, the meaning of life, and death. Excessive objectification
has been a malady of recent analytic philosophy, claims Nagel, it
has led to implausible forms of reductionism in the philosophy of
mind and elsewhere. The solution is not to inhibit the objectifying
impulse, but to insist that it learn to live alongside the internal
perspectives that cannot be either discarded or objectified.
Reconciliation between the two standpoints, in the end, is not
always possible."
(with my added italics)
Those italics belongs to the machine discourse. G* knows that the
objectifying is possible with comp (Bp = Bp & p), but that it is
impossible to do by the machine on itself, by G not proving Bp <-> Bp
& p.
Unlike "analytical philosophy", which build tools without using them,
arithmetical theology explains why Nagel is right, for objective,
sharable reason, in the comp frame.
People ignores that machines do have an impressive theory of mind (and
matter).
Bruno
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?
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.
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 and Kevin Knuth 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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
[email protected]
http://www.provensecure.us/
“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 immediately.”
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
