Re: causes (was:ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper)
Hi John, On 06 Mar 2011, at 22:27, John Mikes wrote: On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Is the causes word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change in the information common to all that causes' (or necessitates!) a change in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the 'many'? Onward! Stephen Thanks, Stephen, for standing up against the verb 'causes'. In our limited views of the totality (the unlimited complexity of the wholeness) we can only search for factors contributing to changes we experience WITHIN the model of our knowledge. If we find such, we are tempted to call it THE cause - while many more (from the unknown) may also play in. You are right. The term cause is very tricky. They are as many notion of cause than there exists modal logics (infinities). We can say that a causes b, if B(a - b), in some context/theory defining locally modality B. It *is* a vague notion. Information is also a tricky term, maybe: knowledge of relations we (lately?) acquired in our topical model of yesterday's knowledge, but definitely also WITHIN our knowable model. (Please forgive me for using yesterday's: nobody can think in terms of all the ongoing news of today). Information has to be distinguished from true information, consistent information, true consistent information, etc. In comp, the modalities of the self-reference forces us to introduce those distinction. Eventually this shows that machines have an incredibly rich canonical theology (scientifically testable, because it contains the machine's physic). Here, the theology of a machine is defined by the truth *about* the machine. Nobody can know it, but a machine can study its logic (independently of its content) for a simpler (in term of the strongness of its provability predicate (the B in the hypostases)). Have a good day, Bruno -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 3:09 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper On 3/6/2011 7:18 AM, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Collapse appears to instruments as well as people - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you mean by account for collapse. At least one interpretation of QM, advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and Omnes for example, is that the collapse is purely epistemological. All that changes is our knowledge or model of the state and QM merely predicts probabilities for this change. Such epistemological theories need to be carefully distinguished from consciousness causes collapse theories. Right. Epistemological collapse is nothing but a change in information that causes us to change our description. ** Is the causes word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change in the information common to all that causes' (or necessitates!) a change in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the 'many'? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: causes (was:ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper)
-Original Message- From: Brent Meeker Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 3:09 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper On 3/6/2011 7:18 AM, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Collapse appears to instruments as well as people - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you mean by account for collapse. At least one interpretation of QM, advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and Omnes for example, is that the collapse is purely epistemological. All that changes is our knowledge or model of the state and QM merely predicts probabilities for this change. Such epistemological theories need to be carefully distinguished from consciousness causes collapse theories. Right. Epistemological collapse is nothing but a change in information that causes us to change our description. ** Is the causes word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change in the information common to all that causes' (or necessitates!) a change in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the 'many'? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: causes (was:ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper)
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote: * Is the causes word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change in the information common to all that causes' (or necessitates!) a change in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the 'many'?* *Onward!* *Stephen* ** Thanks, Stephen, for standing up against the verb 'causes'. In our limited views of the totality (the unlimited complexity of the wholeness) we can only search for factors *contributing* to changes we experience WITHIN the model of our knowledge. If we find such, we are tempted to call it *THE cause - *while many more (from the unknown) may also play in. *Information* is also a tricky term, maybe: knowledge of relations we * (lately?)* acquired in our topical model of yesterday's knowledge, but definitely also WITHIN our knowable model. (Please forgive me for using yesterday's: nobody can think in terms of all the ongoing news of today). ** Best John M * * -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 3:09 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper On 3/6/2011 7:18 AM, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Collapse appears to instruments as well as people - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you mean by account for collapse. At least one interpretation of QM, advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and Omnes for example, is that the collapse is purely epistemological. All that changes is our knowledge or model of the state and QM merely predicts probabilities for this change. Such epistemological theories need to be carefully distinguished from consciousness causes collapse theories. Right. Epistemological collapse is nothing but a change in information that causes us to change our description. ** Is the causes word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change in the information common to all that causes' (or necessitates!) a change in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the 'many'? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
