On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:00 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> On 07-04-2022 18:25, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> > You need to keep in mind that there are different meanings of
> > "fundamental".  Those "macroscopic concepts" like measurements and
> > records and facts are epistemically fundamental; and remain so however
> > theories change.  The reductionist base of the current theory is
> > ontologically fundamental, but it may be replaced by a new theory with
> > a different ontology, as QM replaced Newtonian mechanics and
> > statistical mechanics replaced thermodynamics.  Being ontologically
> > fundamental is a precarious position.
> >
> Yes, and that means that the new theory must reduce effectively to the
> old theory in the macroscopic regime where the old theory makes (almost)
> correct predictions. If we then ask fundamental questions about e.g. the
> existence of a multiverse that can only be addressed by getting the
> details about the dynamics at the microscopic level correct, then it's
> not appropriate to fix up the theory by introducing notions from the
> macroscopic domain that should in principle follow from the fundamental
> dynamics at the micro-level.

Notions of measurement and the formation of permanent records do follow
from the fundamental micro-dynamics of decoherence.

The appearance of permanent records should follow from decoherence. But
> it makes sense to consider states of algorithms that process information
> as a more general notion of observation.

Permanent records do follow from entanglement and decoherence. There is no
reason to suppose that algorithms processing information are going to
produce permanent records. Unless they do, they are useless as a model of
observation. In the words of David Albert (paraphrased): "The task of
fundamental physics is to explain the manifest image ."


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 view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to