If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/17/21 at 8:32am UTC, wrote Hi Lorraine, I was at university also in 3 in geology but I have stopped...

**Lorraine Ford**: *on* 5/16/21 at 22:41pm UTC, wrote Steve, I studied Physics, Maths and Computer Science at university. The...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/16/21 at 10:31am UTC, wrote Hi Lorraine, I agree that we don t know why we exist and from what. The...

**Lorraine Ford**: *on* 5/16/21 at 1:28am UTC, wrote Steve, I don’t know why we exist and nor do you. One of the few things...

**Lorraine Ford**: *on* 5/16/21 at 0:54am UTC, wrote To represent the essential features of conscious experience, it is...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/15/21 at 10:08am UTC, wrote Lorraine, let s take like you tell these boolean algebras, and lets...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/15/21 at 9:21am UTC, wrote My Dear Lorraine, I want to know your philosophy , we come from what ? why...

**Lorraine Ford**: *on* 5/15/21 at 0:47am UTC, wrote To represent the situations inherent in a dynamic world, requires...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Jim Snowdon**: "It`s the cognitive grasp of the Earth`s rotational motion! Our conscious..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Jim Snowdon**: "Steve, The science is simple. Embrace the non-existence of..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi, Esa, Nasa, WB, UN ,All governments, the royal famillies, the..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Nicholas hosein**: "Iwrote the above when I had perfect clarity."
*in* Good Vibrations

**Steve Dufourny**: "Dr Chiang, I am understanding. These quars , antiquarks, gluons personally..."
*in* Anatomy of spacetime and...

**Kwan Chiang**: "Hi Steve, I didn’t get involve with quarks and gluons too much, because..."
*in* Anatomy of spacetime and...

**Nicholas hosein**: "This bears some resemblance to my statement from 2014 on these forums,..."
*in* Reconstructing Physics

**Nicholas hosein**: "Everything is observer dependent?"
*in* Good Vibrations

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Good Vibrations**

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

**Reconstructing Physics**

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

**The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves**

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

**The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI**

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

**Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel**

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi BLOGS

January 23, 2022

CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]

TOPIC: Round Table on 'Varieties of Realism in Quantum Physics' by Alexia Aufféves, Chris Fuchs, Wayne C. Myrvold [refresh]

TOPIC: Round Table on 'Varieties of Realism in Quantum Physics' by Alexia Aufféves, Chris Fuchs, Wayne C. Myrvold [refresh]

Quantum Limits of Knowledge 2021

Wednesday 31st March, 2021

Chair: Claudio Calosi

With: Alexia Aufféves, Chris Fuchs, Wayne C. Myrvold

**Keywords:** #quantum #interpretations #foundations #realism

report post as inappropriate

This forum thread is open to the public.

Wednesday 31st March, 2021

Chair: Claudio Calosi

With: Alexia Aufféves, Chris Fuchs, Wayne C. Myrvold

report post as inappropriate

This forum thread is open to the public.

How did the funny-weird old men of physics and philosophy and their acolytes get away with propagating a view of the world in which people don’t change the numbers for the variables? The funny-weird old men and their acolytes say that its NOTHING BUT the laws of nature changing the numbers for the variables, and that people can only ever have the superficial appearance of changing the numbers for the variables. The funny-weird old men and their acolytes say that that WASN’T YOU burning coal or dropping plastic in the ocean, you fool - it was the laws of nature causing every aspect of every outcome.

The funny-weird old men have got away with it so far because intellectuals and the physics-philosophy acolytes have been content to follow and believe the dogma. The intellectuals and the physics-philosophy acolytes have absorbed a dogma whereby people and other living things couldn’t possibly be changing the numbers for the variables.

But the really funny-weird thing is that physics has NO IDEA why the numbers for the variables change. Equations, even equations with delta symbols in them, merely represent static relationships: equations can NEVER represent a dynamic system where the numbers move. No matter what amazing, mind-blowing equations that people come up with, equations can NEVER represent a dynamic system where the numbers change. You need algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra, to represent a dynamic system. And you need algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra, to represent what people and living things know and do.

report post as inappropriate

The funny-weird old men have got away with it so far because intellectuals and the physics-philosophy acolytes have been content to follow and believe the dogma. The intellectuals and the physics-philosophy acolytes have absorbed a dogma whereby people and other living things couldn’t possibly be changing the numbers for the variables.

But the really funny-weird thing is that physics has NO IDEA why the numbers for the variables change. Equations, even equations with delta symbols in them, merely represent static relationships: equations can NEVER represent a dynamic system where the numbers move. No matter what amazing, mind-blowing equations that people come up with, equations can NEVER represent a dynamic system where the numbers change. You need algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra, to represent a dynamic system. And you need algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra, to represent what people and living things know and do.

report post as inappropriate

Are physicists aware that their own (or their computer’s) interactions with the equations that represent the laws of nature are what makes it possible for the equations to “come alive” and represent a dynamic system? To represent a dynamic system, physicists (or their computers) need to interact with the equations. So, the system that symbolically represents a dynamic world consists of: 1) the equations that represent relationships between categories; and 2) the physicists who know the equations and make the numbers move. I.e. the system of representation includes the physicist!

So, to attempt to symbolically represent a system that is independent of the knowledge and actions of physicists requires symbolically representing something equivalent to the physicist. But the knowledge and actions of physicists can only be represented with algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra.

report post as inappropriate

So, to attempt to symbolically represent a system that is independent of the knowledge and actions of physicists requires symbolically representing something equivalent to the physicist. But the knowledge and actions of physicists can only be represented with algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra.

report post as inappropriate

Physics and philosophy make fools of the people of the world. Did the Germans kill 6 million Jewish people in WWII? Physics and philosophy say: “No, that’s just superficial appearances; people can’t change the numbers for the variables; the laws of nature caused that outcome. Did Islamic extremists deliberately crash into the Twin Towers? Physics and philosophy say: “No, that’s just superficial appearances; people can’t change the numbers for the variables; the laws of nature caused that outcome.

And right now, while the world melts and burns and floods, most physicists and philosophers and their acolytes continue to believe that people had no part in causing it, and people can have no part in attempting to fix it. Physicists and philosophers and their acolytes continue to believe that we live in a world of superficial appearances: people can’t change the numbers for the variables; the laws of nature cause every aspect of every outcome; it’s the laws of nature that change every number for every variable.

QBism is currently the only physics view of the world whereby people can genuinely have an effect on the numbers for the variables. This is a fundamentally different view of the topology of the world, a topology that can’t be derived from the topological view of most physicists and philosophers and their acolytes. QBism is currently the only physics view of the world whereby people can take themselves and other people, and what they write and say and do, seriously.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

And right now, while the world melts and burns and floods, most physicists and philosophers and their acolytes continue to believe that people had no part in causing it, and people can have no part in attempting to fix it. Physicists and philosophers and their acolytes continue to believe that we live in a world of superficial appearances: people can’t change the numbers for the variables; the laws of nature cause every aspect of every outcome; it’s the laws of nature that change every number for every variable.

QBism is currently the only physics view of the world whereby people can genuinely have an effect on the numbers for the variables. This is a fundamentally different view of the topology of the world, a topology that can’t be derived from the topological view of most physicists and philosophers and their acolytes. QBism is currently the only physics view of the world whereby people can take themselves and other people, and what they write and say and do, seriously.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Lorraine, I don t understand why you tell this about the physicists and philosophes. Never when the rational universalism is understood they affirm these things. The Quantum Bayesianism is interesing indeed and is an interpretation of the quantum mechanics philosophically speaking.

We can tell all what we want and have our own interpretations physical and philosophical, we have not found...

view entire post

We can tell all what we want and have our own interpretations physical and philosophical, we have not found...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

Give us a straight answer. Do you, YOU, have any affect at all, ANY AFFECT AT ALL, on the world, or is it just nothing but the laws of nature operating?

YES or NO. I’m not interested in the waffle. I just want to know if you think that people are GENUINELY RESPONSIBLE for burning coal and species extinctions, or it is just the laws of nature that are responsible for burning coal and species extinctions.

Give us a straight answer. I’m not interested in the waffle.

report post as inappropriate

Give us a straight answer. Do you, YOU, have any affect at all, ANY AFFECT AT ALL, on the world, or is it just nothing but the laws of nature operating?

YES or NO. I’m not interested in the waffle. I just want to know if you think that people are GENUINELY RESPONSIBLE for burning coal and species extinctions, or it is just the laws of nature that are responsible for burning coal and species extinctions.

Give us a straight answer. I’m not interested in the waffle.

report post as inappropriate

Admin Note: This post was flagged for review. It has been edited to remove language directed at other users. Please follow community guidelines and be polite and respectful towards other users at all times.

-------------

Lorraine, [[my view is that]] that we have a consciousness evolved and that we have a sad past considering the evolution. We have the possibilities to change with this free will and harmonise what we can. We can solve our major global problems and the laws of nature or the agents are not the problem, the problem is to act and utilise this consciousness correctly. It is not me who waffle. Are you conscious that all is a question of universalism and consciousness ? Globally we are responsible yes of problems , and we can change.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post approved

-------------

Lorraine, [[my view is that]] that we have a consciousness evolved and that we have a sad past considering the evolution. We have the possibilities to change with this free will and harmonise what we can. We can solve our major global problems and the laws of nature or the agents are not the problem, the problem is to act and utilise this consciousness correctly. It is not me who waffle. Are you conscious that all is a question of universalism and consciousness ? Globally we are responsible yes of problems , and we can change.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post approved

Physicist Christopher Fuchs says that “the real message of quantum mechanics is that the world is loose at the joints”, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained

-by-its-founder-20150604 . I agree. This is how I would describe it:

1. How people symbolically represent the world. There exist aspects of the world that can only be represented as equations, categories, and numbers. But there also exist aspects of the world that can only be represented with algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra.

2. What exists. There exist elements of the world that can actively assign numbers to some of the variables/ categories. This element is necessary in order to transform the world from a set of passive relationships between categories, i.e. the laws of nature, into a dynamic system.

3. Numbers. While the laws of nature are passive relationships between categories, numbers are also passive relationships between categories. But numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, leaving a thing that has no category. If these numbers are then assigned to a couple of the categories, the numbers that apply to other categories can be passively changed by virtue of the law of nature relationships, and the fact that numbers are nothing but relationships anyway. I.e. a number can be: 1) a relationship, constructed so that it doesn’t have a category; or 2) a relationship that is the consequence of 1 and the law of nature relationships.

report post as inappropriate

-by-its-founder-20150604 . I agree. This is how I would describe it:

1. How people symbolically represent the world. There exist aspects of the world that can only be represented as equations, categories, and numbers. But there also exist aspects of the world that can only be represented with algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra.

2. What exists. There exist elements of the world that can actively assign numbers to some of the variables/ categories. This element is necessary in order to transform the world from a set of passive relationships between categories, i.e. the laws of nature, into a dynamic system.

3. Numbers. While the laws of nature are passive relationships between categories, numbers are also passive relationships between categories. But numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, leaving a thing that has no category. If these numbers are then assigned to a couple of the categories, the numbers that apply to other categories can be passively changed by virtue of the law of nature relationships, and the fact that numbers are nothing but relationships anyway. I.e. a number can be: 1) a relationship, constructed so that it doesn’t have a category; or 2) a relationship that is the consequence of 1 and the law of nature relationships.

report post as inappropriate

(continued)

4. The joints. The active elements of the world are like the joints between the passive elements. The active elements are associated with matter, and they can only be represented with algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra.

report post as inappropriate

4. The joints. The active elements of the world are like the joints between the passive elements. The active elements are associated with matter, and they can only be represented with algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra.

report post as inappropriate

Admin Note: This post was flagged for review. It has been edited to remove language directed at other users. Please follow community guidelines and be polite and respectful towards other users at all times.

-------------

Steve,

[[I disagree with your understanding of]] mathematics and logic.

Agency, i.e. people having a GENUINE effect on the world, requires that people personally change SOME of the numbers for the variables, as opposed to the laws of nature changing ALL of the numbers for the variables.

[[I believe that]] your ideas logically contradict each other. You actually believe that you personally, and people in general, have NO EFFECT on the numbers for the variables. So you actually believe that you personally, and people in general, have no effect on the world, no effect on the climate, and no effect on species extinctions. You actually believe that the ONLY cause of every outcome is the laws of nature.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post approved

-------------

Steve,

[[I disagree with your understanding of]] mathematics and logic.

Agency, i.e. people having a GENUINE effect on the world, requires that people personally change SOME of the numbers for the variables, as opposed to the laws of nature changing ALL of the numbers for the variables.

[[I believe that]] your ideas logically contradict each other. You actually believe that you personally, and people in general, have NO EFFECT on the numbers for the variables. So you actually believe that you personally, and people in general, have no effect on the world, no effect on the climate, and no effect on species extinctions. You actually believe that the ONLY cause of every outcome is the laws of nature.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post approved

Lorraine , with all my respect , I still don t follow what you try to explain, We understand thr maths and logic, like I said I have an education in maths and sciences strong in secondary more the university and I cannot stop to study these maths and physics and in all humility I know about what I speak. You consider like I said these numbers and variables , we have understood you,we know that the numbers, the particles, the fields, the waves are under a partition but you insist only on this qbism intepretation and the boolean algebras like the only one truth. Rovelli has wonderfully explained the different interpretations of our QM wich converge . And I am tired to explain you that we have a consciousness and that yes we can act on our environments and on the interactions between agents. I don t understand what you try to tell us to be frank.We can act on this climate, we can change the world, so why you tell all this ??

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

The mathematical relationships, that physics has found, pretty well represent the world, EXCEPT for some fairly important details:

1) Equations and numbers are not sufficient to describe the world. Fact: even with delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature can never, NEVER, represent a dynamic system. Number movement is an entirely separate thing to the laws of nature, which are merely static relationships between categories: the equations that represent the laws of nature can never represent ongoing number change.

You need algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra, to represent ongoing number change in the world. The algorithmic and Boolean symbols represent the aspect of the world that turns the static equations into a dynamic system.

To represent a SYSTEM, as opposed to merely representing RELATIONSHIPS, you need to use algorithmic and Boolean symbols.

2) What is this aspect of the world that can only be represented with algorithmic and Boolean symbols? These symbols can be used to represent consciousness and agency.

report post as inappropriate

The mathematical relationships, that physics has found, pretty well represent the world, EXCEPT for some fairly important details:

1) Equations and numbers are not sufficient to describe the world. Fact: even with delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature can never, NEVER, represent a dynamic system. Number movement is an entirely separate thing to the laws of nature, which are merely static relationships between categories: the equations that represent the laws of nature can never represent ongoing number change.

You need algorithmic symbols, including the symbols of Boolean algebra, to represent ongoing number change in the world. The algorithmic and Boolean symbols represent the aspect of the world that turns the static equations into a dynamic system.

To represent a SYSTEM, as opposed to merely representing RELATIONSHIPS, you need to use algorithmic and Boolean symbols.

2) What is this aspect of the world that can only be represented with algorithmic and Boolean symbols? These symbols can be used to represent consciousness and agency.

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

I’m talking about how one symbolically represents the world, and what the symbols represent.

Despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent ongoing number change: the equations represent relationships between categories IF some of the numbers for the categories change.

The equations require either:

1) People (or their computer programs) manipulating the numbers for the equations; OR

2) Additional symbols that stand in for the people manipulating the numbers

in order to produce a representation of a dynamic system.

In other words, you need algorithmic and Boolean symbols to produce a complete, stand-alone, representation of a dynamic system. The algorithmic and Boolean symbols represent aspects of a system that the equations can’t represent.

report post as inappropriate

I’m talking about how one symbolically represents the world, and what the symbols represent.

Despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent ongoing number change: the equations represent relationships between categories IF some of the numbers for the categories change.

The equations require either:

1) People (or their computer programs) manipulating the numbers for the equations; OR

2) Additional symbols that stand in for the people manipulating the numbers

in order to produce a representation of a dynamic system.

In other words, you need algorithmic and Boolean symbols to produce a complete, stand-alone, representation of a dynamic system. The algorithmic and Boolean symbols represent aspects of a system that the equations can’t represent.

report post as inappropriate

Anyone who knows anything about systems and systems analysis knows that a set of equations can never represent a system. You need algorithmic and Boolean symbols, as well as equations and numbers, in order to represent a complete, stand-alone dynamic system. Despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature can never represent a complete, stand-alone dynamic system.

The only question is: if one needs to use algorithmic and Boolean symbols, as well as equations and numbers, in order to symbolically represent the world, what aspects of the world do the algorithmic and Boolean symbols represent? (Algorithmic and Boolean symbols being things like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and ELSE.)

The answer, of course, is that algorithmic and Boolean symbols are used: 1) to represent conscious, integrated knowledge of a situation [1]; and 2) to represent genuine agency, i.e. where the numbers for the outcome variables are changed in response to the knowledge of a situation.

1. Where a situation is representable as the numbers that apply to a set of variables; and where conscious, integrated knowledge of a situation (including feelings/ subjective experience) is representable as (e.g.) “(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE”.

report post as inappropriate

The only question is: if one needs to use algorithmic and Boolean symbols, as well as equations and numbers, in order to symbolically represent the world, what aspects of the world do the algorithmic and Boolean symbols represent? (Algorithmic and Boolean symbols being things like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and ELSE.)

The answer, of course, is that algorithmic and Boolean symbols are used: 1) to represent conscious, integrated knowledge of a situation [1]; and 2) to represent genuine agency, i.e. where the numbers for the outcome variables are changed in response to the knowledge of a situation.

1. Where a situation is representable as the numbers that apply to a set of variables; and where conscious, integrated knowledge of a situation (including feelings/ subjective experience) is representable as (e.g.) “(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE”.

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

Re Steve Dufourny replied on May. 8, 2021 @ 17:50 GMT:

1. One needs to symbolise how the WHOLE system works: equations and numbers are not sufficient to symbolically describe a complete system. Algorithmic and Boolean symbols can be used to DEscribe how the system works, not PREscribe how the system works. I’m NOT talking about a PREscription/ recipe for the world, I’m talking about a DEscription of the world.

However, any algorithmic and Boolean aspects of the world can’t be measured, they can only be inferred. Similarly, the law of nature relationships can’t be measured, they can only be inferred. It’s only the numbers for the variables that can be measured.

2. Vague ideas about consciousness and agency are not enough. You need to attempt to symbolically represent consciousness (and/or agency), so that you can see the connections between consciousness (and/or agency) and the physics of the world (if any).

This has got nothing to do with philosophy. How do you symbolically represent consciousness (and agency)? If you can’t symbolically represent what it is you are talking about, then you can’t begin to say anything useful about it.

report post as inappropriate

Re Steve Dufourny replied on May. 8, 2021 @ 17:50 GMT:

1. One needs to symbolise how the WHOLE system works: equations and numbers are not sufficient to symbolically describe a complete system. Algorithmic and Boolean symbols can be used to DEscribe how the system works, not PREscribe how the system works. I’m NOT talking about a PREscription/ recipe for the world, I’m talking about a DEscription of the world.

However, any algorithmic and Boolean aspects of the world can’t be measured, they can only be inferred. Similarly, the law of nature relationships can’t be measured, they can only be inferred. It’s only the numbers for the variables that can be measured.

2. Vague ideas about consciousness and agency are not enough. You need to attempt to symbolically represent consciousness (and/or agency), so that you can see the connections between consciousness (and/or agency) and the physics of the world (if any).

This has got nothing to do with philosophy. How do you symbolically represent consciousness (and agency)? If you can’t symbolically represent what it is you are talking about, then you can’t begin to say anything useful about it.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine, I am going to be frank with respect, you have no idea about this consciousness and why we exist apparently and your boolean algebras and computing are not sufficient, I invite you to learn the generality in sciences, all sciences , the evolution and the philosophy, after maybe we could go deeper in the discussions but there it is not possible unfortunally. You tell nothing of relevant to reach the consciousness and why we are conscious and how to create a consciousness with the computers, you know the computings, that is all. Regards

Ps learn more about the works of Rovelli and penrose, hameroff and others, because there it becomes ironical this repetition about the symbols and boolean algebras.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Ps learn more about the works of Rovelli and penrose, hameroff and others, because there it becomes ironical this repetition about the symbols and boolean algebras.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

“I am going to be frank with respect, you have no idea about” systems, and how systems must be symbolically represented. A system CANNOT be represented with a set of equations, despite the delta symbols: you need algorithmic and Boolean symbols to represent a system.

You don’t know “why we exist”. I’m amazed that you seem to think you know “why we exist”.

“I invite you to learn” about systems, evolution and philosophy, and “after maybe we could go deeper in the discussions” but it “it is not possible unfortunally”. Learning is not parroting: learning is understanding and analysing, not just uncritically believing everything you are told.

You can’t even describe what consciousness is, neither mathematically nor in words. THE START OF INVESTIGATION IS A MATHEMATICAL OR WORD DESCRIPTION. That is why you “tell nothing of relevant to reach the consciousness”.

After studying physics, mathematics, and computer science at university, I spent more than 20 years as a computer analyst and programmer. I know how computers work, from the bottom up. If you knew about how computers work, you would know that I am NOT, NOT, talking about computers: I am talking about how to represent a system.

P.S. “learn more about the works of Rovelli and penrose, hameroff and others”, but DON’T be a mere believer: look critically at things, because your “repetition” about the supposed power of your “spherical” equations "becomes ironical”.

You need to represent a SYSTEM: a set of equations can NEVER represent the world: you need algorithmic and Boolean symbols.

report post as inappropriate

“I am going to be frank with respect, you have no idea about” systems, and how systems must be symbolically represented. A system CANNOT be represented with a set of equations, despite the delta symbols: you need algorithmic and Boolean symbols to represent a system.

You don’t know “why we exist”. I’m amazed that you seem to think you know “why we exist”.

“I invite you to learn” about systems, evolution and philosophy, and “after maybe we could go deeper in the discussions” but it “it is not possible unfortunally”. Learning is not parroting: learning is understanding and analysing, not just uncritically believing everything you are told.

You can’t even describe what consciousness is, neither mathematically nor in words. THE START OF INVESTIGATION IS A MATHEMATICAL OR WORD DESCRIPTION. That is why you “tell nothing of relevant to reach the consciousness”.

After studying physics, mathematics, and computer science at university, I spent more than 20 years as a computer analyst and programmer. I know how computers work, from the bottom up. If you knew about how computers work, you would know that I am NOT, NOT, talking about computers: I am talking about how to represent a system.

P.S. “learn more about the works of Rovelli and penrose, hameroff and others”, but DON’T be a mere believer: look critically at things, because your “repetition” about the supposed power of your “spherical” equations "becomes ironical”.

You need to represent a SYSTEM: a set of equations can NEVER represent the world: you need algorithmic and Boolean symbols.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine, your problem is the vanity simply and you believe that you are special and innovative , but it is not the case, you critic and make a kind of rebel comportment with all the bloggers, Jonathan who is relevant, Georgine who is smart, and you critic all the physicists in repeating the same ironical things. The most impressing is that you beleive that you understand better the physics, maths, logic than the others, but in fact you repeat only. You have a problem of personality or what ? you are frustrated in your life ? And my spheres 3D like foundamental objects can be true, like my theory of spherisation and the evolution of this universe, if you cannot understand this, so maybe you can simply work this psychological problem Because frankly it is more than odd, you impress nobody you know and you have created nothing of really innovative and concrete Lorraine. You can continue to critic Rovelli, all the physicists, Georgina, Jonathan, me, and the other physicists, all what you have shown us is simply a repetition of same things and an odd comportments. You want to compete, ok let s continue, you like the game and the computing, ok , let s go deeper in your repetition about the variables, agents, symbols, boolean algebras, but don t forget, you have shown us how you see the generality and what is your psychology . We know you simply Lorraine. To you .

PS answer to these questions that I have asked, what is the origin philosophical of our universe and what are the foundamental objects, and don t turn around the pot with the same repetition of words, answer if you can but in fact you have no idea, because simply you have forgotten to study more the general sciences and philosophies, you can maybe just make this, write program on computers, that is all. Maybe you can prove I am false .

report post as inappropriate

PS answer to these questions that I have asked, what is the origin philosophical of our universe and what are the foundamental objects, and don t turn around the pot with the same repetition of words, answer if you can but in fact you have no idea, because simply you have forgotten to study more the general sciences and philosophies, you can maybe just make this, write program on computers, that is all. Maybe you can prove I am false .

report post as inappropriate

Despite the delta symbols, the symbolic equations that represent the laws of nature represent static relationships between categories. If people (or the computer programs they have written) didn’t manipulate the symbols, the symbolic equations that represent the laws of nature would just sit there on page or screen forever. In mathematics, as well as physics, its PEOPLE that make the numbers and other symbols move.

So, in order to symbolically represent a stand-alone moving system, you need to symbolically represent people, i.e. you need to use algorithmic symbols. The algorithmic symbols represent the aspects of the universe that move the aspects of the universe that are represented by the static equations and numbers.

The aspects of the universe that are represented by the static equations and numbers are things like mass, velocity, and position. But the aspects of the universe that move the aspects of the universe that are represented by the static equations and numbers, don’t have a name. The algorithmic aspects of the universe that animate the universe haven’t been given a name.

report post as inappropriate

So, in order to symbolically represent a stand-alone moving system, you need to symbolically represent people, i.e. you need to use algorithmic symbols. The algorithmic symbols represent the aspects of the universe that move the aspects of the universe that are represented by the static equations and numbers.

The aspects of the universe that are represented by the static equations and numbers are things like mass, velocity, and position. But the aspects of the universe that move the aspects of the universe that are represented by the static equations and numbers, don’t have a name. The algorithmic aspects of the universe that animate the universe haven’t been given a name.

report post as inappropriate

To represent the situations inherent in a dynamic world, requires algorithmic and Boolean symbols, as well as the symbols for equations, categories/ variables and numbers. This is how to symbolically represent a dynamic world:

The numbers, that are equated to the categories (e.g. the relative position category), are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out. The laws of nature are also mere relationships; the laws of nature are not active elements of the world.

The active elements of the world are matter, from particles to people. When an active element of the world changes some of the numbers for the categories, other numbers are changed by the mere fact of lawful relationship.

The laws of nature, which are mere static relationships between variables/ categories, do not handle situations. The active elements of the world encounter situations, but the situations are only significantly complex when it comes living things. A situation can only be represented using Boolean symbols (e.g.):

(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE.

The active elements of the world change the numbers in response to situations: NEW number relationships need to be created in response to situations. This response can also only be represented with algorithmic and Boolean symbols (e.g.):

IF ((variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2) OR variable3=number3) IS TRUE, THEN assign number4 to variable4.

These algorithmic and Boolean symbols represent:

1) Consciousness of situations; and

2) A free/ creative response to the situations inherent in a dynamic world.

report post as inappropriate

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

The numbers, that are equated to the categories (e.g. the relative position category), are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out. The laws of nature are also mere relationships; the laws of nature are not active elements of the world.

The active elements of the world are matter, from particles to people. When an active element of the world changes some of the numbers for the categories, other numbers are changed by the mere fact of lawful relationship.

The laws of nature, which are mere static relationships between variables/ categories, do not handle situations. The active elements of the world encounter situations, but the situations are only significantly complex when it comes living things. A situation can only be represented using Boolean symbols (e.g.):

(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE.

The active elements of the world change the numbers in response to situations: NEW number relationships need to be created in response to situations. This response can also only be represented with algorithmic and Boolean symbols (e.g.):

IF ((variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2) OR variable3=number3) IS TRUE, THEN assign number4 to variable4.

These algorithmic and Boolean symbols represent:

1) Consciousness of situations; and

2) A free/ creative response to the situations inherent in a dynamic world.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine, let s take like you tell these boolean algebras, and lets consider so the binar systems and the true, false. It is different than the general algebras where the logic of additions, multiplications, numbers are th variables. So if we go in the laws of this consciousness about the choices, and feelings, thoughts. But we must recognise that the intelligence, the logic are different than a...

view entire post

view entire post

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

To represent the essential features of conscious experience, it is necessary to use the Boolean AND symbol. From particles to people, the specific content of conscious experience of a situation, and the integrated-global aspect of this conscious experience, can only be symbolically represented in the following type of way:

(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .

So, the situation that a living thing finds itself in is experienced as something true, but to represent this experience, you need to use variables and numbers and the Boolean AND and TRUE symbols.

The Boolean AND and TRUE symbols can’t be derived from equations, e.g. the equations that are used to represent the law of nature relationships. In other words, the essential aspects of conscious experience can’t be derived from, and can’t “emerge” from, the laws of nature.

Experience of situations is a subjective view of the world: there is no objective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in: there is only subjective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in. From particles to people, the most important part of the dynamics if the world is a response (where numbers are assigned to variables) to a situation representable as:

(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .

report post as inappropriate

(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .

So, the situation that a living thing finds itself in is experienced as something true, but to represent this experience, you need to use variables and numbers and the Boolean AND and TRUE symbols.

The Boolean AND and TRUE symbols can’t be derived from equations, e.g. the equations that are used to represent the law of nature relationships. In other words, the essential aspects of conscious experience can’t be derived from, and can’t “emerge” from, the laws of nature.

Experience of situations is a subjective view of the world: there is no objective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in: there is only subjective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in. From particles to people, the most important part of the dynamics if the world is a response (where numbers are assigned to variables) to a situation representable as:

(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.