Stephen P. King (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 02 Jul 1999 10:31:36 -0400
I am not having a good day! :=(
> Stephen P. King wrote:
> > Umm, the problem I have with that I think Matti is saying is that it looks
> > like he assumes that there is a "physical objective reality" with definite
> > properties independent of observations/experiments. QM experiments show that
> > this is not the case. The simple double slit experiment is a good example; we
> > can't say that a particle traveled one path or another, we can only say that the
> > particle has a 50% chance of being found on either path.
> The independant reality of the physical world is what we base our
> ability to communicate with each other on. If we were all 'insane'
> and did not agree on anything we were observing (like blind men
> feeling an elephant) we'd not be able to talk to each other at all.
I am saying that it is the other way around! The so-called "independent" aspect of the "physical world" is based on our ability to communicate with each other. Those properties that we say are "objective" are so merely because those are the properties that we
can communicate effectively about to each other. Remember I said over and over: each observer has his/her/its own subuniverse! When you and I communicate, what is going on? We are comparing our respective sets of possible experiences, e.g. we are gauging our
subuniverses relative to each other.
Why is this so difficult? It is so frustrating! :=( It can be proven that there is no "objective reality" having definite properties independent of particular observations. An observation is a communication between a given entity having an ensemble of possible
properties acting as a measurer and a given entity having its own ensemble of possible properties acting as an measuree. The key point is that any such observation or measurement or whatever it is called is a mutual act. I look at an electron and it looks back at me.
I measure it reducing its ensemble of possible properties relative to my ensemble and it does the same back. A communication, interaction, measurement, whatever, it is a two-way act of definition.
To say that the elephant has properties independent of the blind men is tacitly positing that there is someone else that the blind men could communicate with that is not blind! There is no GOD out there to observer the Universe and define it, if we were to try to
say that there is, such a Being would have to be the Universe itself, and as such would be deaf blind and dumb as it could never percieve itself.
> You are mixing metaphors in the two-slit example above. You cannot
> talk about "particles" at all if you are totally uncertain about their
> position. In the case we you have no information about the path,
> the "wave perspective" is as appropriate as the interference pattern.
> Quanta are not particles. Photons are not particles. Photons are quanta.
> Quanta are wave-particles.
Robert, please! You are not groking my point... let us not spilt hairs over semantics. :=)
> If you have complete information about the paths, the particle perspective
> is as appropriate as the resulting defraction pattern.
> If you have partial information about the "quanta" as in a
> variable photon tagging experiment, then you get a partial
> interference pattern of "waves" which can be described equally
> well as the aliasing of "particles".
Sure, I agree, I think, with what you are saying... My point is that the finite restrictions imposed by the finite observational/communicational context are what define the properties. They do not have a priori status independent of this.
> > Individual observations are measurements, they actualize one possibility to
> > the exclusion of the others. The unity of consciousness, I believe is involved!
> > We only can observe from a singular perspective and thus the very act of
> > observing is an instantiation of consciousness.
> Observations are not measurements. Or, at least I personally
> make that distinction.
> An observation is subjective, while a measurement is objective.
> Observations can be distorted by a conscious mind. Measurements
> are what we assume cannot be distorted by a particular mind because
> it is the measurements that we conform to when communicating.
Ok, we can define measurement that way. My case is still strong! The key point is that we can never have access to the subjective stance of another entity, be it a bat or an electron or another person. If we could, we would BE that entity! The basic notion of the
continuity of consciousness, of identity is involved. We should discuss that later! :=)
> We say: "The apple is red." and the agreement between us is objective
> reality. Subjective reality is prone to disease, exaggeration and lying.
> If I say: "The apple is blue." then that is *my* subjective reality and
> not necessarily yours, but you repeat this below.
> Quantum physics does not make the "insane" become "sane". What is does
> seem to say is that the "insane" have a subjective-objective imbalance.
> Usually we give a large percentage of our minds over to objectivity
> partially because we communicate with each other but principally because
> it seems necessary to survival.
> This does not address the timeless Zen question: "Is a dog enlightened ?"
How could it be determined one way or another? Does the dog understand the question as I do? Each entity has its own standards against which it can be aware. We are only aware of differences... Yes, quantum physics does not make "insane" become "sane", but this
is a mute point since there is no absolute (objective) standard for either sanity, like beauty, is in the eye (or mind) of the observer!
> > Your point about subjective realities being only communicable as fictions is
> > illuminating! :=) What is subjectively a fact to me is only such to me, to
> > another observer with their our subjective facts my fact is a fiction and their
> > fact is a fiction to me. What we agree upon as our common facts are those
> > aspects of our observations that overlap in a set theoretic sense, they are
> > shared actualities not "objective" realities in the sense of being independent
> > of observation. Thus your point of the sanity-insanity problem is well spoken.
> > This also points out how each observer has a unique gauge which is correlated
> > with its identity. Observers with exactly the same gauge are one and the same
> > observer.
> > > More practically, this is the analogy-logy dualism ?
> > I am not sure... ?
> Occam's law is somewhat specialized to logical not analogical
> relationships. Throwing one die an infinite number of times
> yields the same distribution as throwing and infinite number
> of dice once.
In have been asking a question about this last point for a long time and am not being understood. What do we call the transformation that converts "Throwing one die an infinite number of times" into "as throwing and infinite number of dice once."? This is what I
mean by: what is the transformation or symmetry between a time series and an ensemble?
> I think that in this case the Lama does not apparently
> understand logic as much as he understands that there
> are some 'proofs' that are inherently lengthy. The flaw
> in occams razor is that it is not particularly scale
> invariant leading many to believe that TOE or GUT will be
> an equation that fits on a T-shirt. It may be true that
> a nice simple form exists, but like Douglas Adams' "42"
> it will be wide open to interpretations and metaphors.
> What else can you expect from the most general of ideas;
> that it should so broadly apply as to carry the essence
> of everything in it ? So the Zen buddhists call "it" "the
> nameless". Or they are kind, and call it "Zen" knowing that
> the label says not what it is.
> When we have a platypus which is a generality of species
> we cannot classify it as "mammal" or "reptile" or "bird"
> or "marsupial"... We call it an enigma.
My point is that an observer does not have access to an absolute standard (Oracle, devinity, etc.) with which to know with absolute certainty the properties of a entity given an arbitrary context. All we have is our our finite set of experiences against which we
can pattern recognize and this itself is a turbulent mirror!
> > > If I say something has a 60-40 probability, without
> > > further constraints, this applies to many many things
> > > and the relationship between those things is analogous
> > > not logous(logical) or causual. The macronyms we give
> > > to such things are literal metaphors without further
> > > constraints like giving the name platypus to that which
> > > cannot be classified in the usual taxonomy.
> > Yes, I think I understand... Constraints, per say, tend to be idealized as
> > being applicable with crisp binary certainty. This assumption requires a
> > god-like perspective which must be rejected for obvious reasons! The sets of
> > constraints involved in a given observation seem to be crisp up close but this
> > crispness fades into the horizon, e.g. the farther away an observer is or the
> > lower the resolution of the telescope used, the fuzzier the boundary of the
> > constraint.
> In a book called "Partial Coherence" (that I can't locate at the moment)
> the author reflects that the extremes are idealizations.
> > > But also, "absorption" is similar in that it means something
> > > in two contexts. The macronym "absorption" in physics means
> > > a kind of "many decoherent resonances". The micronym "absorption"
> > > means a kind of "single coherent resonance". In the former,
> > > absorption is the noisy transfere of energy to a whole whereas
> > > in the microcosm is the noise there on an individual level
> > > where photons are accepted into atoms ?
> > Is this "absorption" the inverse of an emission? If the emission and
> > absorption are only possible discretely, does it mean that the particles
> > involved have to remain discrete?
> Long-wave radio antennas emit waves. You'd have a hard time
> trying to convince an empiricist that it emits particles and
> an easy time convincing the theorist. Theorists seem to allow
> any ordering of eigenvalues quite readily. The sun circles the
> earth is just as valid as the earth circling the sun in a theoretical
> > > The minimal set of quantum physical operators is meant to
> > > be sufficient to distinguish states. This state labelling
> > > leads to the statefunction which are the eigenfunctions
> > > of the operators but the is no single statefunction for all
> > > the operators must commute as in a classical state of coherence.
> > This noncomutativity is my point in my ordering problem and the
> > NP-Completeness involved in time. :=)
> Take the dice example and work from there. It illustrates the
> extremes, so all you have to do is fill in the middle.
> I don't think it will be easy. "Infinity" is too generic.
And "how long" (how many irreducible steps) does it take to "fill in the middle? Eternity! So I say that time exists because everything can not happend at once... But, with the caveat that this only is true for the subsets of the universe not for the Whole!
> > > The two fundamental schools of zen are Rinzai and Soto which
> > > teach in complementary ways. The student is bounced back
> > > and forth between these as the teacher determines s/he needs
> > > to balance his attitude. The student becomes "coherent" bouncing
> > > back and forth between these dual mirrors. "Enlightenment"
> > > becomes a subjective state of coherence when all subjective
> > > dualisms are "resolved". Here "resolved" has the same sense
> > > as understanding the "Heisenberg Microscope" in terms of
> > > the resolution of uncertainties.
> > The successive absorption and emissions "winnow" away the chaff of fuzziness
> > that entanglement causes! The causal/logical connections are weakened by the
> > "bouncing".
> Be careful, entanglement is not exacty the same as a superposition of
> wavefunctions, otherwise entanglements could be made with beam
> splitters and not require non-linear crystals and
> parametric downconversion.
Good point! :=)
> > > That the Fourier uncertainty is purely mathematical suggests
> > > an even greater subjective application for the HUP principles.
> > > It's not a just physical law but a subjective-objective law that
> > > mediates the mind-body duality problem.
> > >
> > > http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/GULLIVER.HTM
> > The "physical laws" are complemented (duality) by the logical precedence
> > laws. Chalmers' original thought point toward this but did not go far enough. I
> > e-mailed him asking his thought on Pratt's paper. His responce was: "hi, i
> > haven't read that paper, i'm sorry to say." I hope he does read it... :)
> There is a generic reply by pop-scientists that is a common disclaimer:
> "I think there might be something in what you say."
> Followed by e-silence.
> I wrote something similar a while back:
We can lead a horse to water...
> > > Fermions are more constrained than bosons. The formalisms
> > > which deal with bosons are much more "subjective"
> > > and have direct metaphors in ch'an/zen buddhism.
> > > A caged lion, like fermions, only lets you see the caged lion
> > > and not the wild lion but both are aspects of the lion.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
> > The relationship between boson and fermion statistics looks to me to be very
> > similar to that of Mind and Body, as Pratt defines them! I am willing to wager
> > big bucks that they are the same thing! The compressability and irrotatability
> > of information looks like the way boson can superpose and have strictly
> > orientable null surfaces (fractional spin), the Pauli exclusion and integer
> > valued spin of fermions and spin is the prototypical property of matter...
> I can complete this metaphorical observation with more analogs
> to economics, some of which I covered in talking with Taoists:
I'll take a look... :=)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:55 JST