On 11/24/2024 8:34 PM, PGC wrote:
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.
His axiom only assumes that configurations of a physical system can be
labeled by the natural numbers. Your complaint could have included that
he's writing about it in English, which is not a part of physical ontology.
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?"
Copenhagen gave a clear answer to that by just referring to classical
physics. The subject reads the value on the instrument which assumed a
state corresponding to a projection of the object state.
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.
Clarity which MWI very much lacks.
Foundational work should strive for clarity and honesty
Are you implying that Barandes is dishonest in his presentation? or
it's unclear?
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.
I'd say it's the opposite. We get lost in sophistications precisely
when we go beyond "This works" Which is not to say it's not worthwhile
to go beyond instrumentalism. Going beyond, finding a different way of
looking at things or filling in some gap, can lead to a better, wider
theory, e.g. the long sought theory of quantum gravity.
Barandes is right: examine the obvious things we take for granted; too
bad he didn't apply that to his axiom mentioned above.
To bad you didn't read it as intended.
If Bruno's digital mechanism strikes you as an implausible foundation,
Bruno didn't "address and state why it works for a subject with specific
properties xyz in relation to the precise quantum or classical
frameworks in play." and he failed to make any new or surprising
testable conclusions.
Brent
/*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 ontologicalor 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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/366927f6-6842-4693-a2fd-e35aa72b57edn%40googlegroups.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/2e1355d3-4f1b-473f-babe-0d4078a37de5%40gmail.com.
