On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 19 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only >>>> other worlds do, >>>> >>> >>> > ? >>> >> ! >> >> >> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only >>>> way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds. >>>> >>> >>> > Indeed, >>> >> >> Then why the "?" ? >> >> >> Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term >> "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK. >> >> >> >> >> > You know positivist physicians still alive? Who? >>> >> >> Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's >> Wave; >> >> >> OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too. >> >> >> >> none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no >> philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists >> want to do, figure out how the world works. >> >> >> I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and >> which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical >> axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one >> physical universe, and that we are unique. >> > > The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy > and information in the universe. > > > From quasi zero information, you can generate without adding any > information, all informations. Just split an observer and put them in front > of 1 or 0, and repeat. Similarly, the MW (quantum) view of the vacuum > generates all the physically consistent possibilities, without spending one > bit. The collapse seems on the contrary to generate bit from nothing. But > the collapse is only in the eye of the partial subsystem, as we can read of > (the diaries) of the observer in the terms of the waves (this in any base). > I suspect it is like that for energy too. > Since MWI is deterministic, all possibilities that can possibly ever happen can be known ahead of time and stored in a 4 dimensional space for each universe. The actual physical space is recorded and embedded as causal lines in the 4D mathematical space. Quantum mechanic random selections during energy-conserving wave collapse make those lines fuzzy, but distinct, for the most part. Richard > > Bruno > > > > > > Richard > > >> >> Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do >> philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of >> explanation. >> >> >> >> >> > In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different >>> theories are equivalent, >>> >> >> Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both >> tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the >> vocabulary of mathematics to do so, just as 2 books about World War 2 tell >> the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English >> language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how >> good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we >> should take seriously and think through the implications of what >> mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language. >> >> >> Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language itself. >> You can use different language to describe a similar mathematical reality. >> You can use the combinators, or the sets, to *represent* the natural >> numbers, and admit quite different axioms, but you will get the same facts, >> for example that the number of ways to write an odd natural number as a sum >> of four square is given by 24 times the sum of its odd divisor. Like the >> product scalar does not depend of the orthonormal base, in linear algebra, >> the truth of the arithmetical statements do not depend on the theory and >> language used to describe them. It is the same for computer science, which >> is actually a branch of number theory. Some machines will stop on some >> input independently of the language used to describe those machines and >> input. >> >> >> >> >> >> > but that does not make the thing described into a convention or >>> language. >>> >> >> True. A electron is not a convention or a language, but what about a >> description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the language >> of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's >> Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a electron, but Dirac's >> Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over histories even better. And >> some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even though the >> are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is >> to say they are logically self consistent. So maybe you can not only write >> true descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe you >> can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the language of >> mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real Numbers are >> mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda doubt it but maybe. >> >> >> Sure. but may be electron are only useful fiction to get the voltage >> right for the working of my fridge. Here math and physics are alike, and it >> asks some familiarity with the subject to develop an intuition of what >> might be conventional and what might be a deep truth independent of the >> subject. >> >> >> >> >> >> > On the contrary, it points on something real beyond the language. >>> >> >> But that's exactly what I was getting at, maybe it points to something >> real beyond the mathematics. >> >> >> I was meaning "it points on something real and mathematical beyond the >> language. >> >> >> >> >> I don't insist that is true, maybe mathematics is more than just a >> language, but maybe not, I believe it's worth thinking about. Unlike >> philosophers who are always certain but seldom correct I just don't know. >> >> >> The choice of a theory might be conventional, but some truth will not >> depend on that choice. And with computationalism, I explain that even >> physics is "theory independent". You can use the axiom of arithmetic, or >> the axiom on combinators, and the existence of 24, or of electron, will not >> depend on it. A bit like most truth in linear algebra don't depend on the >> choice of the base. >> >> It is not a convention that 17 is prime. It really means that you cannot >> divide 17 to make some rectangle from it. If math was conventional, there >> would not be any conjecture, like the Riemann hypothesis, or the twin prime >> conjecture. Then Gödel's theorem justifies that the arithmetical truth is >> beyond all possible theoretical formalization of it, and this, imo, gives >> grain to realism in math, against conventionalism. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/d/optout. >> >> >> 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/d/optout. >> > > > -- > 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/d/optout. > > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
