Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
I'm of the all-things-that-can-exist-do-so stripe; it might seem unnecessary and indulgent to posit all these extra possible realities, but for me existence is the easy part and stripping away the chaff is hard. You have this big set of Things What Exist; it's atemporal and eternal, and nothing changes. There's no reason why there should be just one overarching set of rules for constructing it, or one criteria for things to be in it. I'd imagine that there's lots of equivalent principles that can all be used to describe it, with no way of assigning fundamentality to any of them. Abstraction and equivalence are really the most important concepts here - without a basis of physicality, all interpretations and transformations are valid, and what you see is - as you stress - mostly a function of how you look. Our consciousnesses are embedded throughout this uber-reality in an infinite number of ways. There is no particular universe(s) to which we are attached - we're in all of them. All we can do is make observations and winnow away those that were impossible to begin with or decohere and shift the possibilities of the rest. As to consciousness (this p-consciousness thing is a new one on me)... I'd consider that a highly abstract thing anyway; it's not reliant on the specifics of underlying ontologies, but whether they can at some point higher up give rise to processes than can be abstracted in a certain way. There's lots of ways to build a computer, but they all rely on some way create processes that are the equivalent of logic gates. I'll stop aimlessly rambling now :D 2008/10/14 Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Rosefield wrote: And of course you could always add ASPECT 0 - all possible instances of ASPECT 1 Yeah.. a new 'science of universe construction'? I wonder if there's a name for something like that? unigenesis? As I said in my post to Jesse: - - -- - - - - - aspect 1 is NOT underling reality, but a description of it. There may be 100 complete, consistent sets, all of which work as well as each other. We must live with that potential ambiguity. There's no fundamental reason why we are ever entitled to a unique solution to aspect 1. But it may turn out that there can only be one. We'll never know unless we let ourselves look, will we?? aspect 2 is NOT underling reality, but a description of its appearances to an observer inside a reality described structurally as aspect 1. 100 different life-forms, as scientists/observers all over the universe, may all concoct 100 totally different sets of 'laws of nature', each one just as predictive of the natural world, none of which are 'right' , but all are 'predictive' to each life-form. They all are empirically verified by 100 very different P-consciousnesses of each species of scientistbut they *all predict the same outcome for a given experiment*. Human-centric 'laws of nature' are an illusion. aspect 2 'Laws of Nature' are filtered through the P-consciousness of the observer and verified on that basis. - - -- - - - - - Aspect 0 is not relevant just now, to me...Being hell bent on really engineering a real artificial general intelligence based on a human as a working prototype...The only relevant aspect 1s are those that create an observer consistent with aspect 2, both of which are consistent with empirical evidence. i.e. aspect 1 is justified only if/because the first thing it has to do is create/predict an observer that sees reality behaving aspect 2'ly. The mere existence of other sets that do qualify does not entail that all of them are reified. It merely entails that we, at the current level of ability, cannot refine aspect 1 enough. IMHO there is only 1 actual aspect 1, but that is merely an opinion... I am quite happy to accept a whole class of aspect 1 consistent with the evidence - and that predict an observer...Predictability is the main necessary outcome, not absolute/final refined truth. I'm not entirely sure if your remark was intended to support some kind of belief in the reality of multiverses... in the dual aspect science (DAS) system belief in such things would be unnecessary meta-belief. aspect 0 might correspond to a theoretical science that examined completely different universes fun, but a theoretical frolic only. Maybe one day we'll be able to make universes. Then it'd be useful. :-) cheers colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
And of course you could always add ASPECT 0 - all possible instances of
ASPECT 1
- 3-line Narnia -
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
animals.
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!
- McSweeney's -
2008/10/13 Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent Meeker
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the
Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality
that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as
these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any
new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists
often discuss them nevertheless.
-
There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to know
where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to give you
the red pill.
Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ
interpretation, ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what? You
say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not see that
I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled 'taboo' ? Did you
not see that my supervisor uttered forbidden? Read Stapp's book: BOHR
makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is programmed to think by
the training a physicist gets...It's like there's some sort of retreat into
a safety-zone whereby if I make noises like this then I'll get listened
to
*and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion.* This
is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that fact that
science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a club and the
players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even plainer with set
theory:
ASPECT 1 = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
ASPECT 2 = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
FACT
ASPECT 1: = {Null}
FACT
ASPECT 2 = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor do
they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who has a
clue about it agrees that this is the case}
In other words, scientists have added special laws to ASPECT 2 that
masquerade as constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs. Beliefs
about Belief. They ascribe actual physical reification of quantum mechanical
descriptions. EG: Stapp's cloud-like depiction. I put it to you that
reality ASPECT 1 could have every single particle in an exquisitely
defined position simultaneously with just as exquisitely well defined
momentum. There are no 'clouds'. No actual or physical 'fuzziness'. I quite
well defined particle operating in a dimensionality slightly higher than our
own could easily appear fuzzy.There is merely *lack of knowledge* and
the reality of us as observers altering those very things when we
observestandard measurement phenomenon... This reality I describe is
COMPLETELY consistent with so called QM 'laws'. To believe that electrons
are 'fuzzy', rather than our knowledge of them, in an aspect 1 reality
that merely behaves 'as-if' that is the case, is a meta-belief. To believe
that there are multiple universes just because a bunch of maths seems to be
consistent with that...utter delusion...
Physics has also added a special law to ASPECT 2, a 'law of nature' which
reads as follows: Physicists do not and shall not populate set ASPECT 1
because, well just because.
Yet, ASPECT 1 is ACTUAL REALITY. It, and nothing else, is responsible for
everything, INCLUDING P-consciousness and physicists with a capacity to
populate ASPECT 2. Abstractions of reality derived through
P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal
necessity, and if incorporated in ASPECT 2 as an explanation of
P-consciousness, become meta-beliefI belief that this other aspect 2
law has explained P-consciousness when it clearly does not because NONE
of aspect 2 PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS. As to
'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an ASPECT 1 reality - responsible
for the faculty that provides all observation, any less witnessed than
anything is ASPECT 2? You are implicltly denying P-cosnciousness ITSELF
and positing it as having been already explained in some way by CONTENTS of
P-consciousness (that is
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Michael Rosefield wrote: And of course you could always add ASPECT 0 - all possible instances of ASPECT 1 Yeah.. a new 'science of universe construction'? I wonder if there's a name for something like that? unigenesis? As I said in my post to Jesse: - - -- - - - - - aspect 1 is NOT underling reality, but a description of it. There may be 100 complete, consistent sets, all of which work as well as each other. We must live with that potential ambiguity. There's no fundamental reason why we are ever entitled to a unique solution to aspect 1. But it may turn out that there can only be one. We'll never know unless we let ourselves look, will we?? aspect 2 is NOT underling reality, but a description of its appearances to an observer inside a reality described structurally as aspect 1. 100 different life-forms, as scientists/observers all over the universe, may all concoct 100 totally different sets of 'laws of nature', each one just as predictive of the natural world, none of which are 'right' , but all are 'predictive' to each life-form. They all are empirically verified by 100 very different P-consciousnesses of each species of scientistbut they /all predict the same outcome for a given experiment/. Human-centric 'laws of nature' are an illusion. aspect 2 'Laws of Nature' are filtered through the P-consciousness of the observer and verified on that basis. - - -- - - - - - Aspect 0 is not relevant just now, to me...Being hell bent on really engineering a real artificial general intelligence based on a human as a working prototype...The only relevant aspect 1s are those that create an observer consistent with aspect 2, both of which are consistent with empirical evidence. i.e. aspect 1 is justified only if/because the first thing it has to do is create/predict an observer that sees reality behaving aspect 2'ly. The mere existence of other sets that do qualify does not entail that all of them are reified. It merely entails that we, at the current level of ability, cannot refine aspect 1 enough. IMHO there is only 1 actual aspect 1, but that is merely an opinion... I am quite happy to accept a whole class of aspect 1 consistent with the evidence - and that predict an observer...Predictability is the main necessary outcome, not absolute/final refined truth. I'm not entirely sure if your remark was intended to support some kind of belief in the reality of multiverses... in the dual aspect science (DAS) system belief in such things would be unnecessary meta-belief. aspect 0 might correspond to a theoretical science that examined completely different universes fun, but a theoretical frolic only. Maybe one day we'll be able to make universes. Then it'd be useful. :-) cheers colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 01:59:46PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote: aspect 1 describes the underlying reality, which is responsible for consciousness! It is actually the only thing 'reified'. We scientists are made of it, not literal 'appearances'. aspect 1 has been declared merely verboten!?! aspect 2 is all the usual empirical laws. This _includes_ quantum mechanics! aspect 2 and aspect 1 must be 100% mutually consistent. This makes aspect 1 quite knowable. aspect 1 and aspect 2 are both 'about' the natural world. Neither are 'literally' the natural world. They are statements of abstract generalizations in respect of the natural world. Neither has precedence. BOTH have EQUAL right to empirical evidence (delivered into the consciousness of scientists) All we have access to is the appearance of things. Phenomena. To get to the noumenon, your aspect 1, you have to propose models of it that are consistent with the phenomena. Unless there is one and only one model consistent with all observation, we can never truly know the noumenon. I am personally sceptical that this is the case, so we are left with explaining phenomenon according to the usual empirical laws (your aspect 2), and an ultimately unknowable noumenon. Indeed, in certain frameworks discussed in this list, the qualities of the noumenon are really unimportant. In Bruno's COMP, for instance, it doesn't matter what machine runs the universal dovetailer, other than it having the property of universal computation. We have discussed this before on one of your earlier drafts of what I suspect is the paper you have in Foundations of Science. I'm not surprised in you finding it difficult to get reviewed (it took me 3 journals to get some reviews of Why Occam's Razor, which is in comparison a far less radical paper than yours :) . Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent Meeker
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about QM,
though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the Bohm
interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality that
gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as these
different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any new
predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists often
discuss them nevertheless.
-
There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to
know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to
give you the red pill.
Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ
interpretation, ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what?
You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not
see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled
'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered forbidden? Read
Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is
programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's
some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby if I make noises like
this then I'll get listened to
/and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./
This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that
fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a
club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even
plainer with set theory:
ASPECT 1 = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
ASPECT 2 = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
FACT
ASPECT 1: = {Null}
FACT
ASPECT 2 = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor
do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who
has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}
In other words, scientists have added special laws to ASPECT 2 that
masquerade as constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs.
Beliefs about Belief. They ascribe actual physical reification of
quantum mechanical descriptions. EG: Stapp's cloud-like depiction. I
put it to you that reality ASPECT 1 could have every single particle
in an exquisitely defined position simultaneously with just as
exquisitely well defined momentum. There are no 'clouds'. No actual or
physical 'fuzziness'. I quite well defined particle operating in a
dimensionality slightly higher than our own could easily appear
fuzzy.There is merely /*lack of knowledge*/ and the reality of us as
observers altering those very things when we observestandard
measurement phenomenon... This reality I describe is COMPLETELY
consistent with so called QM 'laws'. To believe that electrons are
'fuzzy', rather than our knowledge of them, in an aspect 1 reality
that merely behaves 'as-if' that is the case, is a meta-belief. To
believe that there are multiple universes just because a bunch of maths
seems to be consistent with that...utter delusion...
Physics has also added a special law to ASPECT 2, a 'law of nature'
which reads as follows: Physicists do not and shall not populate set
ASPECT 1 because, well just because.
Yet, ASPECT 1 is ACTUAL REALITY. It, and nothing else, is responsible
for everything, INCLUDING P-consciousness and physicists with a capacity
to populate ASPECT 2. Abstractions of reality derived through
P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal
necessity, and if incorporated in ASPECT 2 as an explanation of
P-consciousness, become meta-beliefI belief that this other aspect
2 law has explained P-consciousness when it clearly does not
because NONE of aspect 2 PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS.
As to 'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an ASPECT 1 reality -
responsible for the faculty that provides all observation, any less
witnessed than anything is ASPECT 2? You are implicltly denying
P-cosnciousness ITSELF and positing it as having been already explained
in some way by CONTENTS of P-consciousness (that is literally, in
context, scientific observation). Do you see that?
In this way, solving for consciousness is systemically proscribed, along
with the permanent failure to solve P-consciousness. Every example where
I have discovered anyone attempting to populate ASPECT 1 or even
positing a mechanism by which that might happenis systematically
ignored and marginalised.
Actual underlying reality creates
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Colin Hales wrote:
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent Meeker
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the
Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality
that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as
these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any
new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists
often discuss them nevertheless.
-
There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to
know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to
give you the red pill.
Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ
interpretation, ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what?
You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not
see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled
'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered forbidden? Read
Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is
programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's
some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby if I make noises like
this then I'll get listened to
/and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./
This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that
fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a
club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even
plainer with set theory:
ASPECT 1 = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
How do you know the Standard model, for example, is not descriptive of
underlying reality. If it's not, there sure are some amazing incidents of
prediction.
ASPECT 2 = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
What's the difference between an empirical law and a descriptive law? Are
empirical laws not descriptive?
FACT
ASPECT 1: = {Null}
See above.
FACT
ASPECT 2 = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor
do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who
has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}
People said the same thing about life and postulated an elan vital. Maybe it's
just that you don't have a clue as to what an explanation would look like.
Brent
They laughed at Bozo the Clown too.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the
Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality
that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as
these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any
new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists
often discuss them nevertheless.
-
There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to know
where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to give you the
red pill.
Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ interpretation,
ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what? You say these things
as if they actually resolve something? Did you not see that I have literally
had a work in review for 2 years labelled 'taboo' ? Did you not see that my
supervisor uttered forbidden? Read Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind
of utterance. Look at how Lisi is programmed to think by the training a
physicist gets...It's like there's some sort of retreat into a safety-zone
whereby if I make noises like this then I'll get listened to
and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion. This is a
serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that fact that
science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a club and the
players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even plainer with set
theory:
= {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
= { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE, including QM,
multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social science, cognitive
science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
You're not being very clear about why you think things like the Bohm
interpretation of QM cannot fall into the category descriptive laws of an
underlying reality. By descriptive do you mean something intrinsically
non-mathematical, so that any mathematical model of an underlying reality
wouldn't qualify? If so, how could this non-mathematical description give rise
to quantitative explanations of what we actually measure empirically? On the
other hand, if you do allow the descriptive laws to be mathematical, what is it
specifically about something like the Bohm interpretation or the many-worlds
interpretation that makes them fail to qualify?
FACT
= {Null}
FACT
= {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor do they have
causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who has a clue about
it agrees that this is the case}
What do you mean by the term P-consciousness? Are you talking about the
first-person aspects of consciousness, what philosophers call 'qualia'?
Personally I'd agree that no purely third-person description of physical
phenomena can explain this, but I like the approach of the philosopher David
Chalmers, who postulates that on the one hand there are laws which fully
determine the mathematical relationships between events in the physical world
(so the physical world is 'causally closed', the notion of interactive dualism
where some free-willed mind-stuff can influence physical events is false), and
on the other hand there are 'psychophysical laws' which determine which
patterns of events in the physical world give rise to which types of
first-person qualia. Of course, since I prefer monism to dualism I have some
vague ideas that the laws of mind might actually be fundamental, with the
apparent physical laws being derived from them--see
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg13848.html for my
speculations on this.
In other words, scientists have added special laws to that masquerade as
constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs. Beliefs about Belief.
They ascribe actual physical reification of quantum mechanical descriptions.
EG: Stapp's cloud-like depiction. I put it to you that reality could have
every single particle in an exquisitely defined position simultaneously with
just as exquisitely well defined momentum.
That's exactly what's true in the Bohm interpretation, particles have
well-defined positions and velocities at all times. If you're not familiar with
this interpretation see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent Meeker
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or
the Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying
reality that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as
long as these different models of different underlying realities don't lead
to any new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but
physicists often discuss them nevertheless.
-
There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to
know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to
give you the red pill.
Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ
interpretation, ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what?
You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not
see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled
'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered forbidden? Read
Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is
programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's
some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby if I make noises like
this then I'll get listened to
/and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./
This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that
fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a
club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even
plainer with set theory:
ASPECT 1 = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
How do you know the Standard model, for example, is not descriptive of
underlying reality. If it's not, there sure are some amazing incidents of
prediction.
What? The standard model IS merely descriptive! /*of*/ an
underlying reality ...It is incredibly predictiveBUT It describes
*/_how it will appear_/* to an assumed observer. It does not describe
the STRUCTURE of an underlying reality. In no way can anyone assume that
Aspect 1 UNDERLYING STRUCTURE _is to_ aspect 2 DESCRIPTIONS OF
APPEARANCES
is ONE _is to_ ONE
This would arbitrarily populate an IDENTITY, {aspect 1} = {aspect 2}
and again fail to predict an observer. Scientists have been doing this
for 50 years. It's call the 'mind brain identity theory'. To describe
the brain is to explain the mindagain nothing predictive of mind
ever occurs.
ASPECT 2 = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
What's the difference between an empirical law and a descriptive law?
Are
empirical laws not descriptive?
FACT
ASPECT 1: = {Null}
See above.
DITTO.
FACT
ASPECT 2 = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor
do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who
has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}
People said the same thing about life and postulated an elan vital. Maybe
it's
just that you don't have a clue as to what an explanation would look like.
Please try to internalise what I actually mean by dual aspect... I have
a very very complex aspect 1 already constructed. I have already
isolated the 1 fundamental principle which appears to be consistent with
the whole thing.
I could write it out in detail. _BUT Without a dual aspect science the
whole process is a waste of time._
An example of aspect 1 science: Steven Wolfram has tried to populate
aspect 1 and doesn't realise it. He has been unjustifiably put down by
the system of blinkered science I have encountered. Forget how
right/wrong you may conceive Steven Wolfram to be merely try to
imagine how different his depiction of an underlying reality is. It is
aspect 1 as a cellular automaton (CA). 'Dual Aspect science' makes
sense of the basic Wolfram framework Wolfram failed to address the
question what is it like to BE an entity in a CA?..this does not
matter..In general terms: A correctly formulated aspect 1 CA would
reveal {Aspect 2} laws to an appropriate observer-entity /within the
CA/, doing science on the CA from that perspective. aspect 2 laws
would equally fail to predict an observer, but would brilliantly predict
specific observations. The rules of the CA are NOT the rules in {aspect
2} They are a completely different set, aspect 1. Only the CA is
responsible for the existence and
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or
the Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying
reality that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as
long as these different models of different underlying realities don't lead
to any new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but
physicists often discuss them nevertheless.
-
There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to know
where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to give you
the red pill.
Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ interpretation,
ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what? You say these things
as if they actually resolve something? Did you not see that I have literally
had a work in review for 2 years labelled 'taboo' ? Did you not see that my
supervisor uttered forbidden? Read Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind
of utterance. Look at how Lisi is programmed to think by the training a
physicist gets...It's like there's some sort of retreat into a safety-zone
whereby if I make noises like this then I'll get listened to
and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion. This is a
serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that fact that
science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a club and the
players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even plainer with set
theory:
= {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
= { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE, including QM,
multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social science, cognitive
science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
You're not being very clear about why you think things like the Bohm
interpretation of QM cannot fall into the category descriptive laws of an
underlying reality. By descriptive do you mean something intrinsically
non-mathematical, so that any mathematical model of an underlying reality
wouldn't qualify? If so, how could this non-mathematical description give
rise to quantitative explanations of what we actually measure empirically? On
the other hand, if you do allow the descriptive laws to be mathematical, what
is it specifically about something like the Bohm interpretation or the
many-worlds interpretation that makes them fail to qualify?
The 'mathematicality' (that a word?) or otherwise of descriptions is
moot. That the natural world happens to cooperate to satisfy the needs
of certain calculii, making certain mathematical abstractions useful, is
only that - happenstance...In the final analysis the 'laws' are merely
descriptions in the sense that they facilitate prediction, which is how
the natural world will appear to us when we look (with our
P-consciousness). Or, in the applied sciences, how we should make the
world appear in order that a desired behaviour occurs. That's all. Being
merely descriptions, they cannot automatically be ascribed any sort of
structural role. Such an assumption is logically flawed. Conversely our
situation does not a-priori prohibit the assembly of a set of
descriptions of actual underlying reality... provided it is consistent
with everything we know AND predictive of an observer.
As I said in the first post: aspect 1 is descriptions of an underlying
reality. aspect 2 is also a set of descriptions, but merely of
generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of
aspect 1. Both aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't
give either aspect priority-ownership of the evidence.
FACT
= {Null}
FACT
= {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor do they have
causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who has a clue about
it agrees that this is the case}
What do you mean by the term P-consciousness? Are you talking about the
first-person aspects of consciousness, what philosophers call 'qualia'?
Personally I'd agree that no purely third-person description of physical
phenomena can explain this, but I like the approach of the philosopher David
Chalmers, who postulates that on the one hand there are laws which fully
determine the mathematical relationships between events in the physical world
(so the physical world is 'causally closed', the notion of interactive
dualism where some free-willed mind-stuff can influence physical events is
false), and on the other hand there are 'psychophysical laws' which determine
which patterns of events in the physical world give rise to which types of
first-person qualia. Of course, since I prefer monism to dualism I have some
vague ideas that the laws of mind might actually be fundamental, with the
RE: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
As I said in the first post: aspect 1 is descriptions of an underlying reality. aspect 2 is also a set of descriptions, but merely of generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of . Both aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't give either aspect priority-ownership of the evidence. And why, specifically, would something like Bohmian mechanics fail to qualify as descriptions of an underlying reality? is it because it doesn't say anything about first-person qualia, or is it for some other reason? What if we had a theory along the lines of Bohmian mechanics, and combined that with psychophysical laws of the type Chalmers postulates, laws which define a mapping between configurations of physical entities (described in mathematical, third-person terms) and specific qualia--would *that* qualify as what you mean by aspect 1? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Jesse Mazer wrote:
As I said in the first post: aspect 1 is descriptions of an underlying
reality. aspect 2 is also a set of descriptions, but merely of
generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of .
Both aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't give either aspect
priority-ownership of the evidence.
And why, specifically, would something like Bohmian mechanics fail to qualify
as descriptions of an underlying reality? is it because it doesn't say
anything about first-person qualia, or is it for some other reason? What if
we had a theory along the lines of Bohmian mechanics, and combined that with
psychophysical laws of the type Chalmers postulates, laws which define a
mapping between configurations of physical entities (described in
mathematical, third-person terms) and specific qualia--would *that* qualify
as what you mean by aspect 1?
Good question.
YES - Bohmian/Stappian/Bohrian/Penrosian/any old quantum mechanics
flavour all fail to predict an observer. Brilliantly predictive OF
observations (appearances) - but that's it. */Dual aspect science
predicts that failure. /*
RE: Chalmers 'postulates' ('law of organisational invariance' etc)
What you are talking about is basically the same thing as 'neural
correlates of consciousness'. Correlating reports of P-consciousness
with neural activity is descriptive: WHAT. Not explanatory: WHY? It is
based on the Mind Brain Identity theorem...yet another tedious
cultural agreement masquerading as science that says: to describe the
brain is to describe the mind. The dressing up with 'psychophysical'
label changes nothing. There is no prediction here. There is merely
correlation based on the same kind of prescriptive deployment of a new
self-fulfilling 'received view'. I hope you can see this.
'Postulates' are just empty declarations. If they fail to make any
predictions they are just a lot of conventions - folk lore - just as bad
as any ascription to QM as ontological. If postulates are contrived to
fit expectations then they are tautologies (in exactly the same way that
computer 'science' computer programs are self-fulfilling tautologies).
This process merely creates a CORRELATE of the observation, not a LAW OF
NATURE.
A real theory would literally predict /a-priori /that our brains should
exist and have the structure they have, that it will be 'like something'
to be the material involved. (It will also be able to make a
scientifically justified statement about the P-cosnciousness of a rock,
a computer and an elephant.) It will predict that: There will be
neurons, assembled into layers and columns like SUCH, that their shape
shall be THIS. That membranes of THAT structure shall be found and shall
be be penetrated by ion channels THUS; That the soma shall be of this
morphogy, and the ion channels shall be of these types and have surface
densities thus...that the composition of the membrane shall be an
ordered but dynamic fluid with lipid rafts doing THIS in THESE cells to
make RED in V4 of the occipital. and so on...
Further more, a complete aspect 1 will result in F=MA as an emergent
a-priori property of reality, calculated as a statistic of the monism.
It would also predict, a-priori, the gravitational constant as an
aspect-1 statistic, along with the speed of light C and so on. In
that way the aspect 1 and aspect 2 shall mesh, perfectly, both
supported by the empirical evidence (a) by predicting an observer
(structured as per the above) and (b) that the observer shall construct
the law F=MA in the appropriate non-relativistic context of appearances.
aspect 1 is NOT underling reality, but a description of it. There may
be 100 complete, consistent sets, all of which work as well as each
other. We must live with that potential ambiguity. There's no
fundamental reason why we are ever entitled to a unique solution to
aspect 1. But it may turn out that there can only be one. We'll never
know unless we let ourselves look, will we??
aspect 2 is NOT underling reality, but a description of its
appearances to an observer inside a reality described structurally as
aspect 1. 100 different life-forms, as scientists/observers all over
the universe, may all concoct 100 totally different sets of 'laws of
nature', each one just as predictive of the natural world, none of
which are 'right' , but all are 'predictive' to each life-form. They all
are empirically verified by 100 very different P-consciousnesses of each
species of scientistbut they /all predict the same outcome for a
given experiment/. Human-centric 'laws of nature' are an illusion.
aspect 2 'Laws of Nature' are filtered through the P-cosnciousness of
the observer and verified on that basis! We need to 'get over ourselves'
yet again, in another round of 'copernican decentralisation' : only this
time in respect of our phenomenal lives and the laws we concoct..
Are we there yet?
RE: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
And now, in Henry Stapp’s book I find the taboo laid out in plain view for all to see. It’s dressed up as the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ and it’s been adopted as a cult, which I will now outline by quotation: (see page 11). “Let there be no doubt about this point. The original form of quantum theory is subjective, in the sense that it is forthrightly about relationships amongst conscious human experiences, and it expressly recommends to scientists that they resist the temptation to try to understand the reality responsible for the correlations between our experiences that the theory correctly describes. The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists often discuss them nevertheless. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
