Barandes' work on non-Markovian quantum dynamics is undeniably sophisticated and offers potential applications (I appreciate the post, thanks), but it exemplifies a recurring issue in alleged foundational inquiry. In *"A New Formulation of Quantum Theory,"* for instance, his "kinematical axiom", that he states as a physical axiom on the slide, assumes natural numbers and sets—*abstract or metaphysical concepts, not physical concepts*—while presenting them as part of a physical ontology (see minute 11 of the video). This conflation risks undermining the rigor and clarity required in foundational inquiry.
Quantum mechanics, in any interpretation (digital mechanism aside), cannot fully explain why it appears as it does to specific subjects without a precise account of what a subject is and how their interaction with the system is modeled. Questions like "Why collapse?" or "Why Many Worlds?" demand assumptions about the subject, their properties, and their relationship to both the physical and mathematical structures they interpret. Without this clarity, foundational reasoning risks either circularity or ambiguity. Foundational work should strive for clarity and honesty in its assumptions before reaching for elegance. It’s not enough to say "this works, it's sophisticated"—we have to address and state why it works for a subject with specific properties xyz in relation to the precise quantum or classical frameworks in play. Without this, we risk getting lost in the weeds of sophistication, leaving foundational gaps open and unexamined. Barandes is right: examine the obvious things we take for granted; too bad he didn't apply that to his axiom mentioned above. If Bruno's digital mechanism strikes you as an implausible foundation, *then what exactly are the assumptions underlying your stance* regarding existence of a subject, with which properties, experiencing which kind of physics and why; how QM, randomness, classicality, consciousness or lack thereof, qualia or not etc. manifest and emerge or don't? On Monday, November 25, 2024 at 5:01:13 AM UTC+1 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 11/24/2024 4:27 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 11:04 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> He [Bell] assumes a deterministic local hidden variable theory. >>> >> >> *> **Which theory is that, then?* >> > > *Ironically that was Erwin Schrödinger's quantum interpretation, and > Albert Einstein's, but it turned out they were both wrong. They thought the > universe was local, deterministic and realistic, but if it was then it > would be impossible to violate Bell's Inequality, and if it was then > quantum mechanics would make incorrect predictions in experiments set up > the way that Bell described. But the experimental results are clear, Bell's > Inequality IS violated and the predictions of quantum mechanics are > correct. * > > *So the only way the universe could be deterministic, local and realistic > is with Superdeterminism, but that theory is idiotic because it requires > you to make quite literally an INFINITE number of assumptions. * > > It only requires that there be *some* initial condition and deterministic > evolution thereafter. Sounds just like Newtonian cosmology. > > > *It's not even a scientific theory because if it's true then the > scientific method itself would be of no help whatsoever in increasing > your ontological or even epistemological knowledge. * > > There would still be deterministic law-like evolution. Does the existence > of randomness help increase your ontological or epistemological knowledge? > According your favorite interpretation, observing a binary event like > ++++..., consistent with a Born probability of 0.01, will leave almost all > physicists with the wrong conclusion because they will see something like > ++-+--+---+-++... with roughly equal numbers of + and -. > > Brent > > *It sort of reminds me of Christian fundamentalists who say that the > universe was created in 4004 BC and God made dinosaur bones, buried them, > and made them look like they were hundreds of millions of years old in > order to test our faith. It's impossible to disprove that idea because God > is omnipotent so He certainly has the power to fool us if He wants to. But > a God like that would be a real prick! * > > * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > 3sq > > -- > 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 view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1%3D2GfGKtV5oXBQ9DPZacjmc5x%3D0psT2TbwCdXdaGfm-Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1%3D2GfGKtV5oXBQ9DPZacjmc5x%3D0psT2TbwCdXdaGfm-Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/366927f6-6842-4693-a2fd-e35aa72b57edn%40googlegroups.com.
