> On 31 Jul 2018, at 07:56, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/30/2018 9:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> You might be referring to my comments. I didn't exactly say that the wf >> isn't real. I was focused on the superposition being wrongly interpreted, >> and IMO this is what Schroedinger showed with his cat experiment. I then >> concluded that superposition, and hence the wf which is described by a >> superposition, contains information only. Whether this qualifies for "real" >> depends on what "real" means. But if the wf contains information only, I >> suppose we can say it is real in some sense even though no one has seen one! >> AG >> >> >> Well the wave function contains you, me, Earth, etc. So in a sense >> everything we see exists in some part of the wave function. No one can see >> it, but no one can see a universe either. >> > > But I can see part of a universe.
Yes, and today, we can see part of the multiverse, in the sense of detecting indirectly its relative existence, which is not different than inferring quarks or the dark side of the moon. Anyway, “seeing” makes sense as a criterion of reality only in Aristotle metaphysics, which is inconsistent with Descartes Mechanism (plausibly, and provably so for its digital version), and I would say QM collapse confirms all this. With mechanism, the (interesting) problem is that we cannot “localise” ourself in infinitely many sigma_1 true number relations (computations). But the constraints of self-referential correctness solves apparently that problem. That notion relies on Truth, and it explains why we cannot effectively define the arithmetical truth, unless postulating some less clear bigger notion of truth (we can define arithmetical truth in Analysis or in Set Theory, but the notion of analytical truth is more dubious and hard to define than the arithmetical truth. I might illustrate all this with the combinators, and show that all Löbian combinators arrives at the same conclusion: if mechanism is true, the observable obeys the laws of the material hypostases, which define an abstract measure on all sigma_1 sentences (the leaves of the universal dovetailer). Plato might be wrong or right, and the point is that this is testable. If the natural world was Aristoteliano-Newtonian, I would think that digital mechanism is not really plausible, or that our substitution level is so low that even the quarks behave classically and that we have just not yet discover the trace of the many-computations (which are realised in a tiny segment of the arithmetical truth or reality). Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
