Search FQXi


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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Lorraine Ford: on 5/12/21 at 23:39pm UTC, wrote Steve, “I am going to be frank with respect, you have no idea about”...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/10/21 at 12:38pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, I am going to be frank with respect, you have no idea about this...

Lorraine Ford: on 5/9/21 at 21:50pm UTC, wrote Steve, Re Steve Dufourny replied on May. 8, 2021 @ 17:50 GMT: 1. One...

Lorraine Ford: on 5/8/21 at 22:22pm UTC, wrote Anyone who knows anything about systems and systems analysis knows that a...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/8/21 at 17:50pm UTC, wrote Hi Lorraine, I agree that the equations need variables to permit a...

Lorraine Ford: on 5/7/21 at 20:56pm UTC, wrote Steve, I’m talking about how one symbolically represents the world, and...

Lorraine Ford: on 5/7/21 at 8:53am UTC, wrote Steve, The mathematical relationships, that physics has found, pretty well...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/7/21 at 7:55am UTC, wrote Lorraine , with all my respect , I still don t follow what you try to...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, Describe in words, or other symbols: - What "consciousness"..." in How does the brain...

Lorraine Ford: "Steve, “I am going to be frank with respect, you have no idea about”..." in Round Table on 'Varieties...

Georgina Woodward: ""Consciousness and agency are a single undivided piece." Lorraine ford...." in How does the brain...

Steve Dufourny: "I search a road with the spherical topological geometrical algebras that I..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Lorraine, I am going to be frank with respect, you have no idea about this..." in Round Table on 'Varieties...

Georgina Woodward: "A short book, newly published on Amazon. The Right Time by Georgina..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Dufourny: "I forgot these pions , they are interesting also like the kaons The Pion..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Schindler: "Neural correlates, computational correlates, and the prospects of..." in Neural correlates,...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.


FQXi BLOGS
May 13, 2021

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Round Table on 'Varieties of Realism in Quantum Physics' by Alexia Aufféves, Chris Fuchs, Wayne C. Myrvold [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Wayne C. Myrvold wrote on Apr. 30, 2021 @ 00:07 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

This forum thread is open to the public.


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 30, 2021 @ 23:44 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 1, 2021 @ 23:14 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 4, 2021 @ 23:17 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 5, 2021 @ 09:43 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on May. 6, 2021 @ 00:12 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 6, 2021 @ 08:52 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post under review


Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 5, 2021 @ 23:54 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 5, 2021 @ 23:56 GMT
(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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 6, 2021 @ 23:19 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post under review
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 7, 2021 @ 07:55 GMT
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 ??

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on May. 7, 2021 @ 08:53 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on May. 7, 2021 @ 20:56 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 8, 2021 @ 22:22 GMT
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”.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 9, 2021 @ 21:50 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 10, 2021 @ 12:38 GMT
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.

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

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on May. 12, 2021 @ 23:39 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.