> On 3 Mar 2019, at 20:49, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:58:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:32:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > Bringing Gödel into physics is treading on a mine field as it is. Believe me, > most physicists react in horror at the mere suggestion of this. I have this > suspicion however that quantum measurement is a a sort of Gödel > self-reference with quantum information or qubits. This may, at least within > how we describe quantum mechanics if it should turn out to be not how the > quantum world actually is, be one reason why we have this growing pantheon of > quantum interpretations and no apparent way to decide which is definitively > correct. > > > > I still think it's Darwin, not Gödel, that has anything to do with "quantum > measurement". > > But physicists recoil in horror from that. > > - pt > > Darwinian logic did put down the Aristotelian-Cartesian hierarchical > structure with respect to biology.
OK. Darwin use both mechanism (quasi-explicitly), and is understood usually in the materialist frame, but Darwin just do not address that question. > Aristotle and Plato are the two most known Hellenic philosophers because > their systems of thought were wrapped into the New Testament Bible. Plato had > this idea of there being a hierarchy of being, which was taken up by St Paul, > carried further by Augustine, Aquinas and eventually encoded by Descartes. > Descartes had this hierarchy of structure over function, design over material > form etc, which was carried into science during the 17th and 18th century. In > some ways Newtonian mechanics was seen as a confirmation of Descartes' > metaphysics. That is true. Today we know that Newtonian Mechanics is highly not computable. But Newton saw that, and indeed, distrusted his Mechanics, and saw it as an approximation. > Darwin struck a fatal blow to this with respect to biology. He struck the wrong view on Descartes and Mechanism, but his own Mechanism is a foreseen of digital mechanism, and its confirmation by molecular genetics, and the genetical code. > > Darwin did away with Aristotle and Descartes with biology. Gödel had an > impact on Plato, though it is not clear to me how. Gödel saw himself as a > Platonist and that his incompleteness theorem demonstrated how mathematical > truth is independent of knowing it. I tend to see this in terms of Turing > machines, which would say that certain problems are not computable and as > such no information can be derived. … can be derived mechanically. But the truth can be guessed and experience by non algorithmic, mechanical, means, even by a machine. Gödel’s theorem is already proved by machine, which can even prove their own Gödel’s theorem, and enforces them to be mystical, that is, to believe that there is something more than their own consciousness. > Whether there is a self-referential truth that is not enumerated is less > important. The real number line has a continuum of elements and there is not > enough information, even if that is infinite, to encode it all. We might say > in some sense that these numbers exist as if being in Plato's cave we can > imagine the existence of things by looking at shadows. Yes. For a set-theoretical realist, there are aleph_0 computable functions, and thus 2^aleph_0 non computable functions. Now, in many toposes, all functions are computable, and all real-functions are continuous. That is the case for the effective topos of Highland, based on Kleene’s notion of realisability. Mechanism ask for arithmetical realism, just to define what is a machine, but it does not asks for set-theoretical realism, or analytical realism. > > Kant proposed a metaphysics that is somewhat parallel to quantum mechanics. > The noumena of what "actually is," that Bohm insisted we could come to really > know, is the unknown of QM. We probably can't know if the quanta is epistemic > or ontic. If you *assume* Mechanism (the indexical weak version I present) then we already know that the quanta are epistemic. > The phenomena are the measurements and predictions. This has a certain > Platonic character to it, but within the physical domain. The noumena are > similar to Plato's pure forms and the phenomena are similar to the physical > forms. The employment of Gödel with physics might be compared to shifting > from Plato to Kant. However, if quantum interpretations are Gödel > self-referential physical axioms The whole of the appearance of the physical reality is brought by incompleteness, for anyone rational and saying “yes” to the doctor. To assume a physical reality is like assuming that a car is driven by invisible horse. It add nothing to the thermodynamics, and add only new question, like what are the invisible horse made of, and in what sense thermodynamics is not enough. It is like adding a new god to prevent a simple explanation. Note that for me, Aristotle has just not understood Plato, and his philosophy is at the antipode of Plato. I like very much Aristotle, because he has always keep the scientific attitude, and has proposed refutable theories. It is known by everybody hat his physics was false (F = mv), and it is ignored by many that his theology is refuted too, at least in the cartesian (mechanist) frame. > of an auxiliary nature we are not left with any knowledge of what might be > called a noumena. What we face is either the fact that decoherence and the > outcome of a quantum event occurs for no reason at all, where quantum > interpretations are fantasies of sorts, I agree with you that events without a cause is nonsense. > or that quantum mechanics is embedded in some physical axiomatic system of > greater power. Not just embedded. Physics occupies a very important place in the theology of the universal machine, and is 100% deducible, making Mechanism empirically testable, and indeed confirmed by all data. Unless we add spurious axioms, like the wave reduction. > > A Darwinian viewpoint on physics is worth keeping in the back of one's head. > The superstring paradigm might be the endpoint of the idea there is some > axiomatic scheme behind physical existence. There is a reality before man made an axiomatic. In this case it is the sigma_1 arithmetical truth. Reality and truth precedes language, thought and axiomatic, unless you look at the numbers has being code of axiomatics and of machines. > It would be similar to Darwin, in that Darwin ended the hierarchical order of > life with lower animals "down there" and us humans at the top "up there" as > the pinnacle of creation by rules given by what we call God. Smolin and other > have proposed Darwinian ideas, but so far nothing has come of them. Maybe > physicists should keep working. With mechanism, there is an analogy with Darwin, given that it extends evolution up to the physical laws. But the evolution is made in the space of computations, which is in arithmetic. Quanta is brought by the consciousness which differentiate on all computations. That explains the weirdness of the quantum reality. More difficult to explain is particles, space and time, but there are reasons to expect an explanation for them too. > > The Darwinian order to the world relies upon an open world system. A closed > world is one where entropy does reach maximum and at equilibrium there is > just death. The creationists love this argument, which is true in a closed > world, but not open. We may then compare it to the structure of cream in > coffee, which has become a bit of a design game these days. If you pour cream > in black coffee it makes all sorts of swirls and structures, but as you keep > swirling the coffee that becomes a brown mix and equilibrium is struck. So > the analogue for an open system would be where both the coffee and cream are > constantly replenished so there is always black coffee and there is always > primarily cream whirls. It is an open system. It is not one that reaches > maximum entropy. Well we know the universe started at a very low entropy. We > know of no particular reason why there could not have been lots of black > holes generated so the initial entropy would be much higher. So how the > universe was generated, say how the inflationary spacetime with a high energy > false vacuum generated the low energy of the true vacuum in our observable > pocket, may have been an aspect of an open system. Of course the arithmetical reality is quite open in that sense. Open problem for the physical reality, but it would be astonishing it could be close. The physical reality is the border of the non physical reality seen from the first person view of the creature run (in infinitely many versions) in arithmetic. > > The quantum states of the universe may in fact never reach equilibrium. > Suppose we have a black hole of mass M and temperature T = 1/8πM in a > background with the same temperature. If the black hole absorbs a photon from > the background or emits a photon to the background as Hawking radiation we > then have M → M ± δM and reciprocally the temperature of the black hole > decreases or increases. So the black hole will by stochastic events drift > away from this equality situation. Equilibrium is not defined. This suggests > there is no general meaning to equilibrium in quantum gravitation. So as a > result a Darwinian concept for cosmology might be possible. With mechanism, it has been proved that this is necessary. Bruno > > LC > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > 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 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.
