Re John R. Cox replied on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 22:12 GMT, John R. Cox replied on Jan. 14, 2020 @ 04:16 GMT and John R. Cox replied on Jan. 21, 2020 @ 21:57 GMT:
Leave the mass/energy equations to the professional physicists. But it is important to distinguish physical matter from mass and energy:
By physical matter I mean particles (including photons), atoms, molecules and living and non-living things. Matter
with other matter.
: energy and mass are categories of information ABOUT matter; these categories merely exist in relationship to other such categories i.e. these categories
with other such categories; these relationships and categories are represented by equations, variables and numbers. But matter itself is not represented by equations, variables and numbers: it is
matter that is represented by equations, variables and numbers.
Physical matter interacts with other physical matter. These
cannot be represented as smooth continuous lawful relationships between categories i.e. as equations. It might be said that aspects of these interactions are more like IF…THEN… conditional behaviour; i.e. conditional behaviour has seemingly been there from the start of the world.
Logical i.e. conditional behaviour is seen in living things and in particles in the double slit experiment. It is clear that aspects of the behaviour of these things in response to the environment they encounter can only be represented by an “IF(environmental condition) THEN (implement non-lawful response to the condition)” logic: i.e. the response is representable by algorithms as opposed to equations. This logical response to conditions encountered is free will.
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 27, 2020 @ 20:36 GMT
John,
Re: "Only
information about matter is representable by equations" (LF) and "You have to explain why YOU think equations are not 'information'" (JRC):
Mass and energy are information about matter. This information really exists, from our point of view, and from the point of view of the micro world. Physics symbolically represents this information with equations, variables and numbers. Physics does not use equations to represent matter itself.
From our higher-level human being point of view, both of these things are information: the mass and energy information AND the symbolic representations of the mass and energy information. I.e. the written or spoken equations, variables and numbers ARE coded information from the point of view of human beings.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 27, 2020 @ 21:35 GMT
Okay, Lorraine,
nobody has been saying that equations (actually the proper term should be 'expressions' of which equalities are but one kind) are matter, or mass or energy. It has always been recognized and understood as symbolic representation. In mathematics lingo, a 'function' is a relationship, operations represent action, transformation, similarity, transaction... all of which are...
view entire post
Okay, Lorraine,
nobody has been saying that equations (actually the proper term should be 'expressions' of which equalities are but one kind) are matter, or mass or energy. It has always been recognized and understood as symbolic representation. In mathematics lingo, a 'function' is a relationship, operations represent action, transformation, similarity, transaction... all of which are attempts to translate what is seen in the mind's eye as a concept of what might be real in a physical real existential reality. That is what physicists have been doing, and doing much better since Galileo's entrepreneurial Laboratory method of testing observation. Can we move on without the California Culture narcissism of intentional (clever new words that 'work at sooo many levels') psychologisms of hyping the Information Age? People under 50 years of age have been systematically indoctrinated into actually believing that somehow nothing of any value was ever done before the digital revolution. The internet was purposely driven into existence by the U.S. government as part in parcel of policies of 'consumerism' after business lost its advantage in export markets because 'business knows best' MENtalities refused to convert to the Metric Standard at the end of WWII and within 20 years the industrialized nations that involved the whole world in their war, had rebuilt brand new and didn't need to rely on U.S. industry to produce machinery to retool to make things in metric sizes. The digital revolution was sold with the same hype as "Nuclear energy will give us electricity too cheap to meter", and it was done primarily because consumerism requires an exponential increase in Money Supply, and that is vastly more expensive to produce by issuance of hard currency and bearer bonds than with the click of a button. The current, I won't credit it as 'modern', fixation on 'information age' terminology insinuated into any discussion in the sciences is unnecessary, counterproductive and as pernicious as 'quantum' everything. All it takes to be 'quantum' is to shoehorn in a lower case 'h'. If people don't follow (edit: the classical old fashioned manner of) how I state what I say, I couldn't care less. They ain't buying my beer. jrc
ps: Day after tomorrow I'll be 70, and guys I've known that were in Nam have always laughed about how much they loved the Aussies. Unlike men of my generation in the States, the Aussies didn't HAVE to go to Viet Nam, they just did for the FIGHT!
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 28, 2020 @ 22:51 GMT
John,
The point I’m making is that a relationship doesn’t turn into a particle, and a particle is not a relationship. The 2 different words symbolically represent 2 different meanings: “relationship” and “particle”.
Similarly, there are other methods of symbolically representing the differences: the “behaviour” of (e.g. mass or energy) relationships is represented by equations and numbers; but at least some of the behaviour of individual particles (e.g. particle behaviour in the double slit experiment) is only potentially representable as IF…THEN… algorithms.
I.e. the “behaviour” of relationships is never conditional, but the behaviour of particles is conditional on circumstances and situations. The “IF…” represents awareness of a logical condition relating to the circumstance or situation; the “THEN…” represents a non-lawful outcome implemented in response to the logical condition (i.e. to the circumstance or situation).
Happy Birthday for tomorrow :-)
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 00:30 GMT
John,
Re using symbolic representations:
I might add that failure to be strict about what is a symbolic representation, i.e. what is a code, and what isn’t, has led to this current ridiculous situation where even well-known physicists have claimed that computers could become conscious.
The fact is, it is living things (and more controversially, particles, atoms and molecules) that do logical analysis of information about their circumstances and situation. Computers/ robots/ AIs don’t do logical analysis of information: they perform symbolic representations of logical analysis of symbolic representations of information.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 16:05 GMT
Generally I agree, Lorraine,
and its symptomatic of the current hubris when professionals attribute human personality traits to AI and such. Information is not itself a physical property, its *about* a physical property.
I'm glad you speak of 'behavior' of relationships, and there again that does not mean a conscious will to perform but simply puts action in context of circumstances...
view entire post
Generally I agree, Lorraine,
and its symptomatic of the current hubris when professionals attribute human personality traits to AI and such. Information is not itself a physical property, its *about* a physical property.
I'm glad you speak of 'behavior' of relationships, and there again that does not mean a conscious will to perform but simply puts action in context of circumstances that commonly occur or can be said to do so. I think there is a tendency to expect uniformity and perfection that borders on a religious belief, which then requires an idea of willful choice in animating action at the particle level. My own persuasion is the opposite; I don't think any relationship always operates perfectly all the time. It only has to work well enough, generally, for particles to form and persist for varying lengths of time as an optimal balance of natural behaviors.
Interpretations of double slit type experiments highlight this tendency to assume uniform perfection. Several years ago I read a generic claim by a University that a research project had succeeded in 'counting' photons down to about ~4. Which of course means a lot of math following schedules of theoretical protocols that assume many things in experimental apparatus and procedures... but okay, give 'em that. But the thing is, in that rarefied setting the best attained result was a multiple of photons, yet DS scenarios treat results as if a single photon at a time is projected towards the baffle. So, yes. It does require very strict and mathematically rigorous criticism of qualification to try to deduce from characteristics of observed behavior, what the physical behavior of energy might be in forming a "particle". My own preference in hypothesis is that a *matter* state exists when a sufficient quantity is gravitationally bound which would have as its proportional greatest density (I=Ec^2) that is physically inelastic. But that's my trip, and I don't like subjecting everyone to it other than as occasional example. Thanks for the Bday greeting. :-) jrc
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 18:02 GMT
"Information is not itself a physical property, its *about* a physical property."
No it is not!Information is not about anything other than itself and whatever else has become
arbitrarily associated with it! If you
associate information (as in using information to "represent" something) with a physical property,
only then will it ever become "*about* a...
view entire post
"Information is not itself a physical property, its *about* a physical property."
No it is not!Information is not about anything other than itself and whatever else has become
arbitrarily associated with it! If you
associate information (as in using information to "represent" something) with a physical property,
only then will it ever become "*about* a physical property". But if you had the great misfortune of
ever, unwisely associating information with nonsensical gibbrish, then that information inevitably becomes *about" nonsensical gibberish. Information as no meaning whatsoever, other than whatever meaning someone or something has "slapped onto it". This is exactly the problem with "modern physics"; no one has
ever bothered to verify that the most fundamental premises of physics (like "identical particles" are actually,
perfectly identical) are actually true.
"There is no more experimental evidence for some of the theories described in this book than there is for astrology, but we believe them..." Stephen Hawking, "The Universe in a Nutshell", Bantam Books, 2001, pp 103-104.
As a direct result, much of "modern physics" has ceased to be "*about* a physical property" of reality at all, but has degenerated into only being *about* physically-nonexistent, mathematical idealizations of physical reality.
"I don't think any relationship always operates perfectly all the time."
Exactly! The real world does not function in accordance with any
idealized conception of it, such as those produced by present-day, mathematical physicists, that only study the properties of their idealizations, rather than the properties of reality itself - that just happens to behave in a considerably different manner, than their idealized conceptions predict. Thus, existing quantum theory merely describes highly-imperfect "drug tests" for physical substances, not the behavior of the substances themselves. So, the
detection probabilities generated by quantum theory, only describe the probability that a test will detect
something (no one bothered to verify what), while totally ignoring the fact that imperfect drug-tests frequently detect "false positives", like declaring a perfect spin-up particle to be present, when in fact, only an imperfect, lopsided, spin-down particle was actually present, that inadvertently triggered the spin-up detection. That is not just another idle speculation - that is
exactly what has been rigorously demonstrated in
my paper. That was the entire point of the demonstration.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 19:52 GMT
Pardon my brevity, Robert,
I was assuming the second part of your first sentence, as being *about*.
Another point in the current idyllic melodrama; QM typically credits Einstein with the proportionality equation used in the photo-electric equation, but it was Max Planck himself whom (reputedly) frenetically threw himself into the task of trying to rationalize his distribution theorem which had matched the observed curve of black body radiation, whom had obtained the algebraic result (e=hf). So fast forward to the common interpretation that a Quantum is One Uniform Particle of that (e=hf)+W energy equivalence; which of course is that value "per second". So how could that one particle per second exhibit the periodic rise and fall of induction as frequently per second, as that which a radio antenna detects? The whole scheme is developed purely for convenience in mathematical representation with complete disregard for analysis of what the real physical property(s) might be. jrc
Incidentally, Rob, when signals engineers speak of horizontal and vertical alignment of broadcast signals, is that specific to orientation of one or the other plane of magnetic or electric direction of field strength? Does the electrical side of the system prescribe the orthogonal initial point for observing the system in design considerations? thanx
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 30, 2020 @ 21:18 GMT
John,
Energy and mass don’t have behaviour, they have “behaviour”: they are strict relationships. This is the exact issue: mathematically, you CAN’T get behaviour (representable by algorithms) out of “behaviour” (representable by equations).
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 30, 2020 @ 21:37 GMT
Lorraine,
I'm having a little trouble digesting that. Could we agree on terminology to distinguish between behavior and 'exhibiting' behavior? jrc
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 30, 2020 @ 22:57 GMT
John,
No matter what the circumstances or situation, relative position and mass and energy “behave” lawfully, i.e. they are representable by equations. Whether there is a lion or a tree 2 metres away, the lawful “behaviour” is exactly the same: i.e. no account is taken of the lion or the tree. These lawful outcomes might “exhibit” a surface appearance of behaviour, but physics is NOT about surface appearances.
Genuine behaviour, on the other hand, takes account of situations, and responds differently to the lion situation. This is not merely a surface appearance, this is about outcomes that are only representable as IF…THEN… algorithms.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 00:58 GMT
Lorraine. Okay,
so when we make an observation we physically only recognize what appears to be a behavioral characteristic, and that is conditional on our own limitations. We can rely to some extent on what has become generally accepted and recognized as physical, or natural, laws to try to deduce what the actual physical behavior might be.
Nothing is more convoluted than how *energy* is treated in theory. Mass: energy equivalence (e=mc^2) is such an example. It requires an algorithmic interpretation to be more than a simple mathematical statement. It clearly implies a bounded interval of possible velocities, nil up to light velocity. But in high energy accelerators that relativistic *energy* (Lorentz Invariance) value is attributed only to the velocity a particle has achieved. So we are 'stuck' with the question of "what the blanck is 'energy' anyway?" Is it physically real or just associated with a particulate mass? Does the velocity have a physical effect on the mass itself? Or is the timely transfer of momentum at point of collision, only the signature of energy that would be associated through velocity? No matter how sudden the particle's flight is arrested, it would not stop instantaneously, so the action would be a negative acceleration, hence; Force = ma, intermediary to momentum transferred to the target. If the velocity has a physical effect on the mass, than the relativistic limit of 'infinite mass' at light velocity would only be a mathematical result of restricted degrees of freedom in SR, and the same physical results in experiment could be expected if the density of the mass varied in direct inverse proportion to velocity. Induction reactance by a lesser density as velocity increased would require the same 'infinite light bill' to accelerate the particle to light speed. How could we choose? How could we test our choice? jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 16:21 GMT
One other thing, Lorraine,
when you state "Matter is not energy or mass: energy and mass are categories of information about matter." - granted, we cannot say that energy of the magnetic flux in the fields of an accelerator is physically transferred to the particle that is being accelerated. But what in your way of envisioning particles in contrast to photons, do you conceive the physical properties of matter to be? Lots of room for differing concepts, here, no need to get excited and call the State Militia. Just how in your minds eye is matter distinguished between a sub-luminal particle mass, and a luminal velocity photon? I have this problem all the time understanding how other people imagine *matter*. jrc
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 21:06 GMT
John,
Re: John R. Cox replied on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 00:58 GMT:
There is no point in asking what energy is. What is anything? We only have our individual conscious knowledge of the world and aspects of the world; and in the case of mass and energy, our detailed scientific knowledge. We know that their “behaviour” can be represented with equations, i.e. “they” are impersonal relationships, but “they” are not things, hence the quotes round the word “they”. Mass and energy are not things because “they” don’t have an information point of view on the world, like a particle or a person does.
There is no point in asking if energy is physically real because clearly, it is an essential aspect of what people might experience as “physically real”. What we experience as the physically real world can only exist because of the underlying unseen lawful relationship infrastructure, which includes energy and mass: energy and mass are real aspects of the world. The properties of a physically real rock, which you accidentally kick and hurt your toe on, only exist because of the underlying unseen lawful relationship infrastructure.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 21:41 GMT
John,
Re John R. Cox replied on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 16:21 GMT:
A photon IS a particle; a photon is not energy, despite what some commentators might say, who try to blur known distinctions. Fudging distinctions is NOT the way to understand things.
Energy is represented with equations and numbers; particles are not represented with equations and numbers. I.e. the “behaviour” of energy is represented with equations and numbers; the behaviour of particles is not represented with equations and numbers.
Particles have an information point of view; energy does not have an information point of view.
This is what we know. What more do you want?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 1, 2020 @ 00:52 GMT
Lorraine, @ 21:41 GMT
re: photons are particles - not represented by numbers and equations
but the Photo-electric Equation IS about Photons hitting particles, ejecting particles. That IS the behavior of particles, in response to (e=hf)+W energy of the photon. That is what Einstein got the Nobel for, (because they had to recognize him, but didn't like the idea of flexible time and space). AND it is only your preference to treat a photon as a single particle, which you are quite welcome to, but there has been no conclusive experiment ever done that establishes that as anything other than an interpretation.
But I'm getting a better idea of how you process ideas, and the important thing in theorizing is to get the idea across. Thanks, John
It was just on the news that Canberra is threatened again by the fires, Trump and his Dumpsters are dinosaurs, the whole world is watching. Good Luck
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 1, 2020 @ 21:54 GMT
John,
Information about matter is represented symbolically, as categories of information and numbers, e.g. mass and energy are represented by variables/symbols and numbers. These categories of information exist in lawful relationships that are represented by equations. But particle/ molecular/ atomic interactions are quantum events, not relationships.
In interactions, particles are absorbed and particles are emitted. In interactions, the various lawful relationships are conserved before and after, but not necessarily during the event. I.e. a particle/ molecular/ atomic interaction is not itself a lawful information relationship representable by equations. I.e. the behaviour of matter is not representable by equations.
The behaviour of matter in interactions depends on the particle/ molecular/ atomic situation encountered, where different AND/OR combinations of information would be the only possible means whereby the micro-world could identify the different forms of matter encountered. From the point of view of physics representing an interaction, AND/OR logical combinations of variables and numbers are necessary to symbolically represent information about the different forms of matter in an interaction. This indicates that logical information about the surrounding situation exists from the point of view of matter in the micro-world.
Thanks for the good wishes. Our prime minister, Scott Morrison, and his political party colleagues are also dinosaurs when it comes to the necessity for real action to avert disastrous climate change!
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 2, 2020 @ 02:14 GMT
Lorraine,
I can follow that to some extent, it seems a bit disconnected to me but not to you so I'm not seeing something you have internalized. 'different forms of matter' I can latch onto in terms of density in my own paradigm, and the stumbling block is the always troublesome qualification of 'information'. Things can get fuzzy there, its such an overused word these days. We really have to first identify, even hypothetically, what we want to return as an result of an algorithm, the 'which route is best around the traffic in town, question', to build up the algorithm itself. ie: Photo-electric Effect = energy IN (photon) and energy OUT (velocity of ejected electron). Which is at root of what Rob stresses about Shannon. We already know the result before we start, other than that, the method is only about itself, not what actually happens in the event sequencing in transfers of energy within the substrate of target material unless we zoom in to specific events.
Sorry, that reads rather foggy, but I've been battling a bad head cold all day and I'm really foggy and getting worse. Later, jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 2, 2020 @ 15:56 GMT
Lorraine,
I don't have to understand how it works, to watch TV. Or the intricacies of microprocessors, and interfaces of program languages to machine codes, to key in text messages on my flip phone. I just have to follow instructions which do not follow from a "be-causal" rationale... that's engineered into the chip architecture. So algorithms that are internal programs of the OS are mysteries of the first water, to me. And that is essentially where the disconnect lies in trying to understand what you present as a method of interpreting physics.
True enough, in the Standard Model of Particle Physics there is no concise definition of "a particle". So it follows that "particles are not represented by numbers and equations" (in the std model). So what advantage is there for anyone to follow your instruction in adopting your vocabulary to restate the std. model? What example might you give for how and why 'particles are absorbed and particles are emitted'? How would you write an algorithm that represents that behavior? Equations which express various natural processes we accept as physical laws, are essentially algorithmic themselves, just usually very short ones. But that is because they are obtained as an algebraic result, the end analysis derived from multiple variations of the same sort of phenomenon. So where do you, personally, want to take your method of inquiry? Always remembering the old song "Look what they've done to my song, Ma". My morning coffee(s) have taken hold and my eyeballs aren't aching anymore, so I might be getting clear of the bug. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 2, 2020 @ 22:21 GMT
John,
Glad to hear that you are feeling better :-)
Physics understands the world by looking at the simplicity underlying the apparent complexity of surface appearances. You’ll never understand the world by looking at the surface appearances.
Energy, mass, velocity, charge, position and momentum exist in lawful relationships which are true in all conditions and situations. You need to use equations to represent the lawful relationships.
On the other hand, particle reactions and interactions (e.g. in the Large Hadron Collider) depend on conditions and situations i.e. they depend on particular numeric values for energy, mass, velocity, charge, position and momentum of the particles. You need to use the IF... part of an algorithmic statement to represent conditions and situations.
Secondly, particle reactions and interactions break some of the laws during the interaction, but the laws were conserved before the interaction, and the laws are restored after the interaction. You need to use the THEN... part of an algorithmic statement to represent these non-lawful outcomes.
These are the facts, not a product of my mind!
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 3, 2020 @ 03:36 GMT
Very well, Lorraine,
but your argument is circular until you provide an actual example of what you say others should do, and walk us through it. Example is, after all is said, the best argument. til then, best regards - jrc
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 3, 2020 @ 21:53 GMT
John,
The laws of science/physics are experimentally derived indications that laws of nature exist. So re my : “particle reactions and interactions break some of the laws during the interaction”:
1. All particle reactions and interactions are quantum interactions.
2. “Many fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various symmetries of space, time, or other aspects of nature. Specifically, Noether's theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
3. “Noether's theorem is a fundamental result in physics stating that every symmetry of the dynamics implies a conservation law. It is, however, deficient in several respects: (i) it is not applicable to dynamics wherein the system interacts with an environment, and (ii) even in the case where the system is isolated, if the quantum state is mixed then the Noether conservation laws do not capture all of the consequences of the symmetries. To address these deficiencies, we introduce measures of the extent to which a quantum state breaks a symmetry.” Extending Noether’s theorem by quantifying the asymmetry of quantum states, Iman Marvian & Robert W Spekkens , 15 April 2014, https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3236 and https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4821
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 4, 2020 @ 01:16 GMT
P.S.
I.e. quantum interactions break symmetries, so particle interactions break laws of nature.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 4, 2020 @ 04:27 GMT
Lorraine,
So, you are suggesting an algorithm (recipe) that would repeatedly output a consistent (within set margins) recombinant macro state data set, from quantum interactions of definite types (say; the complex exothermic hydration process of portland cement, which is not entirely understood) with a qualification of transient symmetry breakage at the atomic:molecular reaction level, given the known refined ratios of the half dozen specific chemical compounds of portland cement manufacture, and the known rates of first, and long cure time durations. (?) And that such a programmed analytical model could then be tested against chemical and stress analysis results typical in concrete engineering. Portland cement being the single greatest manufactured commodity globally, and the extraction through synthesis processing estimated to account for between 6 and 8 percent of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. As a friend and old work mate liked to joke when the set was getting ahead of us, "Don't worry, it comes out as easily as it goes in." That's Gary's algorithm :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 4, 2020 @ 22:26 GMT
John,
I’m interested in observer-participancy [1], but current mainstream physics has no idea of what observers could be, and no idea of what genuine participation in the world could mean. The physics says that human beings are 100% a product of blind laws of nature and randomness, and are thereafter 100% the puppets of the blind laws of nature and randomness. Note that there can be big differences between what the physics actually says and what physicists as people believe about the world.
But there is absolutely nothing in current mainstream physics that would allow human beings to be aware of or cause their own actions and outcomes (the physics says that human beings causing their own actions and outcomes is only superficial appearances). But of present-day importance: there is absolutely nothing in current mainstream physics that would make it possible for human beings to have contributed to climate change outcomes: current physics only has laws of nature and quantum randomness, but no actual observers of situations or causers of outcomes other than laws of nature and randomness.
For more than 50 years, (some) physicists have hoped for, and believed in, miracles i.e. the nonsensical concept of “emergence”, but there has never been any mathematical substance to these beliefs that could apply to the real world of physics, and there are plenty of (mathematical) reasons why these beliefs can’t be taken seriously.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 4, 2020 @ 22:36 GMT
(continued)
There are many people saying that relevant aspects of the behaviour of living things can be represented by IF…THEN… algorithms (also represented by truth tables). I myself would DEFINE behaviour as observer-participancy. I (and physicists like Chris Fuchs) are saying that there are observer-participancy aspects in micro-world quantum events (i.e. they were occurring long before living things arrived on the scene). I am saying that observing is about acquiring logical TRUE/FALSE information about one’s situation, and participancy is about acting on this logical information, and that the relevant aspects of this behaviour can be represented by IF…THEN… algorithms.
(I’m also interested in Roman concrete, which the Romans used, and which sets underwater.)
1. Physicist Chris Fuchs on John Wheeler and the Quantum Principle, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1XZ3fAFhE8
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 5, 2020 @ 01:32 GMT
Lorraine,
that gets into the metaphysical realm of philosophy; like a simple made bowl which reflects a natural form but is a peculiarly human artifact which you can hold in the hand and comprehend its function without a word in the mind. Choose your words carefully, lest they evoke words in the minds of others. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 5, 2020 @ 03:09 GMT
John,
Many, or even most, physicists don’t believe that these issues are merely philosophical or metaphysical.
They understand that the physics basis of ALL of reality needs to be understood – there are NO exceptions, there should be nothing that is not in principle explainable by foundational concepts. That’s why the above-mentioned physicist Chris Fuchs and eminent theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler (deceased), and many other physicists talk about observer-participancy.
Why don’t you say this to them: “Choose your words carefully, lest they evoke words in the minds of others”?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 5, 2020 @ 04:11 GMT
Words immediately spring to mind.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 5, 2020 @ 06:35 GMT
I’m waiting for you to say the words.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies