On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 6:29:14 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 8:05:09 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:58:04 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> It occurred to me a case of hard emergence. The outcome of a quantum 
>>> measurement is such. I have iterated how I think this is connected to 
>>> self-reference, so I will not repeat that here. 
>>>
>>
>> It would be useful IMO, if you did just that. How can random measurement 
>> results be connected with "self referential", whatever that means? A good 
>> idea, sometimes even a bad one, is worth repeating for evaluation. AG
>>
>
> I have outlined on this forum how a quantum measurement is really where 
> quantum states measure quantum states. This is then self-referential and 
> the odd properties of quantum measurement may then be due to the emergence 
> or occurrence of principles outside of causal principles of quantum 
> mechanics.
>
> LC
>

A superposition, when measured, yields an eigenstate. I suppose one can 
call this "self referential". ... Suppose the universe yields specific 
quantum states in a deterministic manner discoverable by mankind. 
Forgetting about Bell experiments which show this is impossible, how would 
you feel about an absolutely deterministic universe, where every evolving 
state is absolutely determined from, say, the BB? Isn't there something 
perverse about an absolutely deterministic universe, also possibly know as 
a Block Universe? ISTM, we have the kind of universe we prefer, 
non-deterministic, yet enigmatic to human intelligence. AG 

>  
>
>>  
>>
>>> However, the outcome is completely random and has no causal basis. It 
>>> emerges for no particular reason, such as initial conditions, and is as I 
>>> see it a complete hard emergence.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:16:58 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ​> ​
>>>>> You might try to give at least one example of hard emergence
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ​
>>>> One molecule of water can't be wet but 6.02*10^ 23 molecules can be. 
>>>> And H2O at 31 degrees F has none of the properties of a liquid but at 33 
>>>> degrees F those same molecules have all the properties of a liquid; 
>>>> although usually emergent properties don't appear as
>>>> ​ ​
>>>> suddenly as that, it is more smooth and continuous. Day is very 
>>>> different from night but there isn't an exact point where one turns into 
>>>> the other. There is nothing mysterious 
>>>> ​or​
>>>>  miraculous going on its just that human language puts concepts into 
>>>> groups called "words" but the real world is messy
>>>> ​ ​
>>>> so
>>>> ​ ​
>>>> there are often intermediate
>>>> ​ ​
>>>> cases where its not clear what the correct word should be; an
>>>> ​ ​
>>>> 80 pound man is clearly thin
>>>> ​​
>>>> and a 800 pound man is clearly fat but there are values between those 
>>>> extremes where reasonable people can differ on what the correct word 
>>>> should 
>>>> be.  
>>>>
>>>> ​ ​
>>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to