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 - all possible instances of > > > > 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: > - - -- - - - - - > 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 . But it may turn out > that there can only be one. We'll never know unless we let ourselves look, > will we?? > > is NOT underling reality, but a description of its appearances > to an observer inside a reality described structurally as . 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. '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 s are those that create an > observer consistent with , both of which are consistent with > empirical evidence. i.e. is justified only if/because the first > thing it has to do is create/predict an observer that sees reality behaving > '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 enough. IMHO there is > only 1 actual , but that is merely an opinion... I am quite happy > to accept a whole class of 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. > 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?
Michael Rosefield wrote: > And of course you could always add - all possible instances > of > > 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: - - -- - - - - - 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 . But it may turn out that there can only be one. We'll never know unless we let ourselves look, will we?? is NOT underling reality, but a description of its appearances to an observer inside a reality described structurally as . 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. '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 s are those that create an observer consistent with , both of which are consistent with empirical evidence. i.e. is justified only if/because the first thing it has to do is create/predict an observer that sees reality behaving '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 enough. IMHO there is only 1 actual , but that is merely an opinion... I am quite happy to accept a whole class of 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. 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 - all possible instances of
- 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:
>
> = {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}
>
> 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}
>
> 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. 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 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 , a 'law of nature' which
> reads as follows: "Physicists do not and shall not populate set
> 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 . Abstractions of reality derived through
> P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal
> necessity, and if incorporated in as an explanation of
> P-consciousness, become meta-belief"I belief that this other
> law has explained P-consciousness" when it clearly does not because NONE
> of PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS. As to
> 'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an reality - responsible
> for the faculty that provides all observation, any less witnessed than
> anything is ? 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 observa
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 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
statistic, along with the speed of light C and so on. In
that way the and 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.
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
. But it may turn out that there can only be one. We'll never
know unless we let ourselves look, will we??
is NOT underling reality, but a description of its
appearances to an observer inside a reality described structurally as
. 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.
'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?
Science is really messed up. The 'XYZ
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:
>
>> 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: is descriptions of an underlying
reality. 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.
>
>> 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
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:
>>
>> = {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
UNDERLYING STRUCTURE _is to_ DESCRIPTIONS OF
APPEARANCES
is ONE _is to_ ONE
This would arbitrarily populate an IDENTITY, {} = {}
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.
>
>> = { 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
>> = {Null}
>>
>
> See above.
>
DITTO.
>
>> 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}
>>
>
> 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 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 science: Steven Wolfram has tried to populate
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
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 CA would
reveal {} laws to an appropriate observer-entity /within the
CA/, doing science on the CA from that perspective. laws
would equally fail to predict an observer, but would brilliantly predict
specific observations. The rules of the CA are NOT the rules in {} They are a completely different set, . Only the CA is
responsib
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?
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:
>
> = {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.
> = { 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
> = {Null}
See above.
> 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}
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?
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:
= {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}
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}
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. 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 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 , a 'law of nature'
which reads as follows: "Physicists do not and shall not populate set
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 . Abstractions of reality derived through
P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal
necessity, and if incorporated in as an explanation of
P-consciousness, become meta-belief"I belief that this other law has explained P-consciousness" when it clearly does not
because NONE of PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS.
As to 'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an reality -
responsible for the faculty that provides all observation, any less
witnessed than anything is ? 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 or even
positing a mechanism by which that might happenis systematically
ignored and marginalised.
Actual underlying reality creates P-consciousness. Nothing else. Until
we allow ourselves to populate we will NEVER explain
anything, let alon
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 01:59:46PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote: > > 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'. > has been declared merely verboten!?! > is all the usual empirical laws. This _includes_ quantum > mechanics! > and must be 100% mutually consistent. This makes > quite knowable. > and 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 , 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 ), 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?
> 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
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 Colin Hales wrote: > > Hi folks, > > This post is long…you’d better get a cup of tea first. > > Following my recent dialog with Jonathon on dual aspect.. the book > “Mindful Universe” by Henry Stapp reached the top of my reading pile. > I confess to having just had a major fume-out. Chapter 2 did it. It > added to my mood of exasperation recently fueled by frustration that a > paper of mine has been in review for 2 years and counting … a paper > involving exactly the issues of dual aspect. > > My fume out was because Henry Stapp’s book is beautifully depictive > and totally explanatory of the insane state of science that I hold > accountable for troubles in the scientific study of consciousness,. > > It’s OK! I had a rest and calmed down. The smoke has cleared. > > It’s just that I am so fed up with what I see as *the* major blockage > in science preventing a science _predictive_ and explanatory of > consciousness. Not ‘/a/’ major blockage but ‘/THE/’ blockage. This is > the big one. > > For I find that I am inadvertently in a cult. A cult whose clerics are > physicists. I didn’t know I was in it. I was enrolled in it before > birth and it has been around me, like poor Truman in the movie ‘The > Truman Show’, the whole time. The young trainee physicist pups around > me here chant the dogma…. The cult? Its directive says those who do > science behave like ….’this’ …. It’s a cult where to do science is to > do a certain dance, where the dance controls your mind. The golden > rule? “Thou shalt only make utterances of the following kind and that > is….”. Before I describe I’d like to add > empirical evidence collected by my own ears from an utterance made by > my physics supervisor, which had me reeling in disbelief. Henry > Stapp’s book just completed the picture and caused my head to explode. > BTW I met Henry at Quantum Mind 2003 in Tucson… This is not a personal > thing at all. Henry is great. I hope he’s in this forum, but doubt it. > In 2003 I had no idea I’d be still thrashing away at this issue.. enough. > > Anyway…I had just outlined to my supervisor, a very competent quantum > mechanic, the basics of a full dual aspect science. = etc1. > = etc2. My supervisor looked up at me and said, in respect > of : > > “/But that is forbidden/”. > > I couldn’t believe my ears. Since when? Says who? Why? Things in > science can be ‘unwisely adopted’, ‘critically weak’, ‘arguably > irrelevant’, ‘refuted’, ‘subject to constraints’, ‘inappropriate in > context’ and so forth. But ‘/forbidden/’ ??!!???...as in ‘locked > behind a closed door marked Do Not Enter?’ (or “beware of the > leopard”, if you are Douglas Adams). What fantasy science cult is > this? /Not the one I signed up for/. > > More evidence. > > I said I had a paper in review at Foundations of Science for _2 > years_. No rejections, not a shred of critical entanglement with the > details of the work – again the topic: dual aspect science > analytically unplugged. In my most recent communications the editor > seemed as puzzled as I was. It seems that the subject material > involved some kind of taboo! > > /What?/ > > Yes, a /taboo/. That’s where ‘what ever it is’ is not wrong or bad or > anything else… but we merely ‘don’t do that’ because, well, we don’t…. > (i.e. critical argument has left the building). > > 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/. > > Italicised portion by me. This ‘reality’ is PRECISELY the I > described above! Having already made major progress with , I > ‘understand the reality responsible’, at least to some extent…. ….Can > you believe the audacity of such a statement? “In worship of the > mathematics rapture, shou shalt not try to even UNDERSTAND the reality > responsible…..” In what way is this distinguishable from an utterance > of the Church to Gallileo? > > What the hell is going on? > > Here’s more… it looks slightly different but it’s actually the same > cultish dogma at work… Gary Lisi > > Lisi, G. (2007) “An exceptionally simple theory of everything.” > http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770 > > “We exist in a universe described by mathematics. But which math? > Although it is interesting to consider that
What the B***P do quantum physicists know?
Hi folks, This post is long...you'd better get a cup of tea first. Following my recent dialog with Jonathon on dual aspect.. the book "Mindful Universe" by Henry Stapp reached the top of my reading pile. I confess to having just had a major fume-out. Chapter 2 did it. It added to my mood of exasperation recently fueled by frustration that a paper of mine has been in review for 2 years and counting ... a paper involving exactly the issues of dual aspect. My fume out was because Henry Stapp's book is beautifully depictive and totally explanatory of the insane state of science that I hold accountable for troubles in the scientific study of consciousness,. It's OK! I had a rest and calmed down. The smoke has cleared. It's just that I am so fed up with what I see as *the* major blockage in science preventing a science _predictive_ and explanatory of consciousness. Not '/a/' major blockage but '/THE/' blockage. This is the big one. For I find that I am inadvertently in a cult. A cult whose clerics are physicists. I didn't know I was in it. I was enrolled in it before birth and it has been around me, like poor Truman in the movie 'The Truman Show', the whole time. The young trainee physicist pups around me here chant the dogma The cult? Its directive says those who do science behave like 'this' It's a cult where to do science is to do a certain dance, where the dance controls your mind. The golden rule? "Thou shalt only make utterances of the following kind and that is". Before I describe I'd like to add empirical evidence collected by my own ears from an utterance made by my physics supervisor, which had me reeling in disbelief. Henry Stapp's book just completed the picture and caused my head to explode. BTW I met Henry at Quantum Mind 2003 in Tucson... This is not a personal thing at all. Henry is great. I hope he's in this forum, but doubt it. In 2003 I had no idea I'd be still thrashing away at this issue.. enough. Anyway...I had just outlined to my supervisor, a very competent quantum mechanic, the basics of a full dual aspect science. = etc1. = etc2. My supervisor looked up at me and said, in respect of : "/But that is forbidden/". I couldn't believe my ears. Since when? Says who? Why? Things in science can be 'unwisely adopted', 'critically weak', 'arguably irrelevant', 'refuted', 'subject to constraints', 'inappropriate in context' and so forth. But '/forbidden/' ??!!???...as in 'locked behind a closed door marked Do Not Enter?' (or "beware of the leopard", if you are Douglas Adams). What fantasy science cult is this? /Not the one I signed up for/. More evidence. I said I had a paper in review at Foundations of Science for _2 years_. No rejections, not a shred of critical entanglement with the details of the work -- again the topic: dual aspect science analytically unplugged. In my most recent communications the editor seemed as puzzled as I was. It seems that the subject material involved some kind of taboo! /What?/ Yes, a /taboo/. That's where 'what ever it is' is not wrong or bad or anything else... but we merely 'don't do that' because, well, we don't (i.e. critical argument has left the building). 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/. Italicised portion by me. This 'reality' is PRECISELY the I described above! Having already made major progress with , I 'understand the reality responsible', at least to some extent Can you believe the audacity of such a statement? "In worship of the mathematics rapture, shou shalt not try to even UNDERSTAND the reality responsible." In what way is this distinguishable from an utterance of the Church to Gallileo? What the hell is going on? Here's more... it looks slightly different but it's actually the same cultish dogma at work... Gary Lisi Lisi, G. (2007) "An exceptionally simple theory of everything." http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770 "We exist in a universe described by mathematics. But which math? Although it is interesting to consider that the universe may be the physical instantiation of all mathematics, there is a classic principle for restricting the possibilities: The mathematics of the universe should be beautiful. A successful description of nature should be a concise, elegant, unified mathematical structure consistent with experience." OK not withstanding all the blather abou
